Odds of 2/1 on a Johnson 2022 exit look value – politicalbetting.com

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

RandallFlagg said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

- “… with his ratings and Tory voting numbers in apparent freefall…”

Five more Deltapoll-scale findings and I reckon he’s history. Tory MPs are clearly not interested in ethics, but the slimeballs won’t look forward to re-entering the jobs market just as England regains her Sick Man of Europe title.

London
Lab 50%
Con 20%

Rest of South
Con 43%
Lab 37%

Midlands
Con 47%
Lab 37%

North
Lab 54%
Con 24%

Scotland
SNP 49%
Lab 29%
Con 15%

Wales
Lab 56%
PC 19%
Con 13%

(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)

10% poll lead in the Midlands is hardly devastating for him

Now you’re moving the goalposts. Previously it was a 10 point deficit which was your Ditch Johnson benchmark. Now a 10 point Con lead in one region is sufficient to save him.

How bad does Con VI need to be before you advocate a fresh leader? Fifteen point deficit? A deficit in every single country and region?

Most polls do not have a Labour lead of 10%+ UK wide

The way the conservatives are going they will be a lot more than that behind Labour in the next few weeks

I do think that Boris is now terminally wounded and will be voted out by his mps by the early summer

It is over @HYUFD

I'm with @HYUFD on this.

Somehow or other Boris survives and goes on to win the autumn 2023 general election (though Con majority is halved) as Keith Starmer bores most of his potential voters into a slumber!

Labour wins in 2028 though!

Not if someone from the Socialist Campaign Group takes over following a defeat. Very unlikely, but we thought the same about Corbyn winning the leadership seven years ago.

At the moment it is more likely the Tories will be moving further right than Labour move left again if the polls are right and Starmer will be next PM.

If not then you may be right

The Tories are moving *further* to the right?! You‘ve already been hijacked by extremists, and now you are relaxed about them dragging the once great old party into truly despicable political territory. Shame on you.

I genuinely find some of this style of post baffling. Extremists? In what way? Are they proposing death camps? Invading France? Or do they just hav3 a different vision of the country than yours? Is it the Brexit thing again? You get that it’s about trade right? We may have made a catastrophic error. Time will tell. But that doesn’t make people extremist.

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

RandallFlagg said:

GIN1138 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

- “… with his ratings and Tory voting numbers in apparent freefall…”

Five more Deltapoll-scale findings and I reckon he’s history. Tory MPs are clearly not interested in ethics, but the slimeballs won’t look forward to re-entering the jobs market just as England regains her Sick Man of Europe title.

London
Lab 50%
Con 20%

Rest of South
Con 43%
Lab 37%

Midlands
Con 47%
Lab 37%

North
Lab 54%
Con 24%

Scotland
SNP 49%
Lab 29%
Con 15%

Wales
Lab 56%
PC 19%
Con 13%

(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)

10% poll lead in the Midlands is hardly devastating for him

Now you’re moving the goalposts. Previously it was a 10 point deficit which was your Ditch Johnson benchmark. Now a 10 point Con lead in one region is sufficient to save him.

How bad does Con VI need to be before you advocate a fresh leader? Fifteen point deficit? A deficit in every single country and region?

Most polls do not have a Labour lead of 10%+ UK wide

The way the conservatives are going they will be a lot more than that behind Labour in the next few weeks

I do think that Boris is now terminally wounded and will be voted out by his mps by the early summer

It is over @HYUFD

I'm with @HYUFD on this.

Somehow or other Boris survives and goes on to win the autumn 2023 general election (though Con majority is halved) as Keith Starmer bores most of his potential voters into a slumber!

Labour wins in 2028 though!

Not if someone from the Socialist Campaign Group takes over following a defeat. Very unlikely, but we thought the same about Corbyn winning the leadership seven years ago.

At the moment it is more likely the Tories will be moving further right than Labour move left again if the polls are right and Starmer will be next PM.

If not then you may be right

The Tories are moving *further* to the right?! You‘ve already been hijacked by extremists, and now you are relaxed about them dragging the once great old party into truly despicable political territory. Shame on you.

Hardly, Boris is still left of Thatcher, IDS, Howard, Home, Salisbury, Bonar Law and plenty of other former Tory leaders not just the extreme right

I went for a snouts in the trough red - or black as it is here!

Razedabode said:

The really friggin stupid thing is for Tory MPs - and I keep repeating this fact - is that THERE ARE MORE FINES COMING. This doesn’t end after the first one. Idiots

It does seem odd. I’ve wondered if Johnson thinks he isn’t getting any more and that’s why he has done what he’s done. Sadly it’s more likely he is just going from day to day, saying whatever he can to survive.

RandallFlagg said:

StuartDickson said:

rottenborough said:

StuartDickson said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

- “… with his ratings and Tory voting numbers in apparent freefall…”

Five more Deltapoll-scale findings and I reckon he’s history. Tory MPs are clearly not interested in ethics, but the slimeballs won’t look forward to re-entering the jobs market just as England regains her Sick Man of Europe title.

London
Lab 50%
Con 20%

Rest of South
Con 43%
Lab 37%

Midlands
Con 47%
Lab 37%

North
Lab 54%
Con 24%

Scotland
SNP 49%
Lab 29%
Con 15%

Wales
Lab 56%
PC 19%
Con 13%

(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)

10% poll lead in the Midlands is hardly devastating for him

34% off the pace in Scotland is, though.

Boris:
10 points off the pace in England.
30 point off the pace in Scotland.
40 points off the pace in Wales.
AWOL in Ireland.

Conservative MPs are out of their tiny minds.

What the feck is wrong with my fellow Midlanders? 47-37? Incredible given Johnson's last few weeks.

Brexit has, quite literally, turned some folk bonkers.

Someone needs to do some public polling of the Midlands and find out exactly why it's so out of kilter with the rest of the country. Unlike the North (where Labour are miles ahead), it seems the Brexit voters seem to be sticking with the Tories.

There's a lot of rural counties in the Midlands, much more than in the North, so the tory vote is bound to be higher.
I'm sure the Borough seats will be close.

BlancheLivermore said:

I went for a snouts in the trough red - or black as it is here!

What a boar!

Very dull debate between Le Pen and Macron, unlike last time, which was electric. Le Pen doing a Brexiteer tribute act, which was dire in the original and exhausts all life the second time round (Global France apparently). Macron doing his teacher thing. Like them he's right most of the time but it doesn't enthuse.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I went for a snouts in the trough red - or black as it is here!

What a boar!

Awesome pun speed!

turbotubbs said:

Razedabode said:

The really friggin stupid thing is for Tory MPs - and I keep repeating this fact - is that THERE ARE MORE FINES COMING. This doesn’t end after the first one. Idiots

It does seem odd. I’ve wondered if Johnson thinks he isn’t getting any more and that’s why he has done what he’s done. Sadly it’s more likely he is just going from day to day, saying whatever he can to survive.

That is his main way of operating.

BlancheLivermore said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I went for a snouts in the trough red - or black as it is here!

What a boar!

Awesome pun speed!

Snort! Snort!

Addendum - love the hat and shirt.

Personally too roly-poly for bib overalls, but they look good on the swine!

JACK_W said:

rcs1000 said:

What's creepy about some good manly nude lake bathing?

A little too Putinesque me thinks ..

Jack W????? Gosh! You're still alive then???

What age are you now? 150?

Gardenwalker said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

RandallFlagg said:

StuartDickson said:

rottenborough said:

StuartDickson said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

- “… with his ratings and Tory voting numbers in apparent freefall…”

Five more Deltapoll-scale findings and I reckon he’s history. Tory MPs are clearly not interested in ethics, but the slimeballs won’t look forward to re-entering the jobs market just as England regains her Sick Man of Europe title.

London
Lab 50%
Con 20%

Rest of South
Con 43%
Lab 37%

Midlands
Con 47%
Lab 37%

North
Lab 54%
Con 24%

Scotland
SNP 49%
Lab 29%
Con 15%

Wales
Lab 56%
PC 19%
Con 13%

(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)

10% poll lead in the Midlands is hardly devastating for him

34% off the pace in Scotland is, though.

Boris:
10 points off the pace in England.
30 point off the pace in Scotland.
40 points off the pace in Wales.
AWOL in Ireland.

Conservative MPs are out of their tiny minds.

What the feck is wrong with my fellow Midlanders? 47-37? Incredible given Johnson's last few weeks.

Brexit has, quite literally, turned some folk bonkers.

Someone needs to do some public polling of the Midlands and find out exactly why it's so out of kilter with the rest of the country. Unlike the North (where Labour are miles ahead), it seems the Brexit voters seem to be sticking with the Tories.

Birmingham was ground zero for protectionism in days of Joe Chamberlain.

Are industries in Midlands less trade dependent, or more challenged by Euro competition, or other current economic factors, differential to the rest of the UK?

It used to make stuff, and perhaps thinks that Brexit means it will make stuff again.

It would interesting to understand how the Midlands has tended to vote over the years; my feeling is that its more lower middle class in its character, compared with working class north and a bourgeois south.

Neither does it have the non-denominational legacy of the West Country.

And under Johnson the Tory core vote is now the lower middle class and pensioners, not the rich bourgeois upper middle class it was under Cameron and Major

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

To some extent country historic Church of England Parish churches are very much part of England, as much as Morris Dancing and Village Green cricket and traditional pubs. Even if you are not very religious

Morris Dancing is the absolute worst.

No it isn't. I have a friend who is a Morris Dancer, nothing better than a May Day Morris Dance watched with beer and ploughmans in a country pub

You've clearly never snorted cocaine off the naked body of a nineteen year old hooker in Bangkok.

For the record, I haven't either,

Oh yeah... ?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

To some extent country historic Church of England Parish churches are very much part of England, as much as Morris Dancing and Village Green cricket and traditional pubs. Even if you are not very religious

Morris Dancing is the absolute worst.

With or without blackface?

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

JACK_W said:

GIN1138 said:

JACK_W said:

rcs1000 said:

What's creepy about some good manly nude lake bathing?

A little too Putinesque me thinks ..

Jack W????? Gosh! You're still alive then???

What age are you now? 150?

Your confusing my age with the number of lockdown parties in Downing Street ..

Man, you're on fire! Or is it, you're on fire water?

GIN1138 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Can Labour remove the Tories from office without the Midlands? Yes, if the Tories get thrashed in the North and London, and lose seats in the South to Labour and the Lib Dems.
But it pretty much rules out Labour getting more than 300 seats unless there's some incredibly significant recovery in Scotland.

The Midlands and (and parts of the) north will stay with Boris.

Keith will have all sorts of problems with the "what is a woman" question and variations of it in a general election campaign...

I don't think he will.

The way things are looking the next GE will be a titanic contest over the economy as we face economic crisis.

The political class just has not got its head around how bad things are getting and will get in next couple of years.

If Tories think they can win on women's toilets while millions struggle to heat homes and send their kids off with a meal inside them, then good luck.

Roger said:

'How do you defend a law breaking liar'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEU4CHBJwkU

To the tune of "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-VRyQprlu8

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

I went for a snouts in the trough red - or black as it is here!

What a boar!

Awesome pun speed!

Snort! Snort!

Addendum - love the hat and shirt.

Personally too roly-poly for bib overalls, but they look good on the swine!

My hat is quite similar!

rcs1000 said:

You've clearly never snorted cocaine off the naked body of a nineteen year old hooker in Bangkok.

For the record, I haven't either, but @eadric was very clear that that is the ultimate experience.

Never realised that Eadric was a necrophiliac. Good thing he's not around here any more, isn't it?

Comments are back. Thanks for sorting out the problem.

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Can Labour remove the Tories from office without the Midlands? Yes, if the Tories get thrashed in the North and London, and lose seats in the South to Labour and the Lib Dems.
But it pretty much rules out Labour getting more than 300 seats unless there's some incredibly significant recovery in Scotland.

The Midlands and (and parts of the) north will stay with Boris.

Keith will have all sorts of problems with the "what is a woman" question and variations of it in a general election campaign...

I don't think he will.

The way things are looking the next GE will be a titanic contest over the economy as we face economic crisis.

The political class just has not got its head around how bad things are getting and will get in next couple of years.

If Tories think they can win on women's toilets while millions struggle to heat homes and send their kids off with a meal inside them, then good luck.

Well of course the economy is always important. That will be the deciding factor as it usually us.

But personalities will count (Keith is just soooo boring) and the Midlands and north won't vote en masse for someone that is unable to define a woman.

But yes, the economy will be the deciding factor ultimately. Expect loads of pre-election tax cuts and Boris to ditch the "green crap" at some point between now and autumn 2023...

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

You said parishioners can automatically get married in the CofE. They can't. The CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages. As you say if the priest is ok with it Divorcees can be married. A same sex marriage in a CofE church would not be recognised in law. So you were wrong. Not a biggie though.

OK heterosexual parishioners (ie still the majority) can get married in C of E churches

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

In that case, the C of E should go into the wedding venues business. Properly. Either be a religion, or a wedding venue rented out to all and sundry.

To some extent it already is, most Vicar's Saturdays are taken up with Weddings and much church and organist and choir income comes from weddings

Andy_JS said:

Comments are back. Thanks for sorting out the problem.

We're back Andy J!

TOPPING said:

Farooq said:

FrankBooth said:

Sorry to go on about the war but....

Has anyone seen or heard from an expert predicting that the Russians are likely to make a major breakthrough in the Donbass? I'm struck by the near universal scepticism from pretty much everyone I listen to or read. At the start of the war many were predicting Kiev would fall in days and the whole country within weeks. Now I can hardly find anyone who thinks they'll get very far. Quite a turnaround. There is a difference between unlikely and impossible and wars are unpredictable beasts. I hope the pendulum hasn't swung back too far the other way and the experts aren't herding in their views.

I think it's a mug's game trying to predict what's going to happen. There's probably nobody in the world that has the necessary information: emplacements, numbers, state of equipment, morale, political will, discipline. All of these things are subject to concealment and misinformation. You'd be lucky to find someone who had a good overview of all this on one side, let alone both.

A point which, when made weeks ago, was met with near universal condemnation on here.

That was because your spin was “all misinformation … can’t believe anything … no way is Ukraine winning”

Anabobazina said:

The French presidential debate seems very long. Is it three hours?

Approaching midnight French time and they are still droning on
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220420-live-macron-and-le-pen-face-off-in-debate-ahead-of-french-presidential-run-off

GIN1138 said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

RandallFlagg said:

Can Labour remove the Tories from office without the Midlands? Yes, if the Tories get thrashed in the North and London, and lose seats in the South to Labour and the Lib Dems.
But it pretty much rules out Labour getting more than 300 seats unless there's some incredibly significant recovery in Scotland.

The Midlands and (and parts of the) north will stay with Boris.

Keith will have all sorts of problems with the "what is a woman" question and variations of it in a general election campaign...

I don't think he will.

The way things are looking the next GE will be a titanic contest over the economy as we face economic crisis.

The political class just has not got its head around how bad things are getting and will get in next couple of years.

If Tories think they can win on women's toilets while millions struggle to heat homes and send their kids off with a meal inside them, then good luck.

Well of course the economy is always important. That will be the deciding factor as it usually us.

But personalities will count (Keith is just soooo boring) and the Midlands and north won't vote en masse for someone that is unable to define a woman.

But yes, the economy will be the deciding factor ultimately. Expect loads of pre-election tax cuts and Boris to ditch the "green crap" at some point between now and autumn 2023...

The more boring man won the 1992 election, so Boris being more charismatic than Starmer isn't going to cut it alone.
Labour definitely need to stay away from the woke stuff, mind.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

In that case, the C of E should go into the wedding venues business. Properly. Either be a religion, or a wedding venue rented out to all and sundry.

To some extent it already is, most Vicar's Saturdays and much church and organist and choir income, comes from weddings

In other words, it is a commercial organization not a religion. But it's a religion underpinning the English state and Crown. How odd. It's like finding a bouncy castle company is the core agency for Buddhism.

No it is both and always has been.

The Church of England has always been a distinctly English Church, a Protestant church with Catholic heritage entrenched in its local community and open to all including country weddings 4 weddings and a funeral style. Sermons more given in upper middle class tones before Sunday lunch and tea with the vicar and cricket on the village green or the village Fete rather than the hellfire and brimstone sermons of, say, the Free Church of Scotland for instance!

StuartDickson said:

Roger said:

'How do you defend a law breaking liar'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEU4CHBJwkU

“Objectively disgusting”

Spot on.

What was the penalty for not wearing a mask in a barber shop at the weekend in Scotland?

Anabobazina said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

kle4 said:

I wish headline writers could come up with more creative descriptions for things.

'French rivals for presidency clash in TV debate' it says, as if a 'clash' was not inevitable. IDK, at least mix it up. Spar at debate, or wrangle, something, anything.

I'd say the terminology was inevitable as the phony clashes at boxing events, but today's story on boxing has 'Fury and Whyte share respect at media conference', and I was so shocked I fell out of my chair.

I actually watched the boxing press conference expecting the usual staged trash talk and petty violence. Like you, I was completely amazed to see what was more akin to the opening handshakes at a public school debating club.

Very, very odd.

They are both worried about each other.

I just assumed Fury would win easily. Although I find that notion bizarre as he is so very obviously out of shape. Not that that ever seems to affect him much.

If you look at him vs Chisora (albeit many years ago) you get an idea as to what the fight will look like. Whyte throwing bombs and Fury boxing using his height to land heavy right crosses over the guard.

In this way Fury wins, yes, especially if the fight goes beyond six rounds.

But Whyte can bang and will have worked on his boxing and as Fury said this evening it's a heavyweight contest so one shot is all it might take.

And for this reason I have backed Whyte.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

In that case, the C of E should go into the wedding venues business. Properly. Either be a religion, or a wedding venue rented out to all and sundry.

I don't mind the C of E being used by people who want to get hatched, matched and dispatched; it's the sort of being present for peoples' lives that the church should be about. Though saying that it's only for the beauty of the location feels a bit off. Besides, there are plenty of drab church buildings and properly attractive civic registry offices. (Though I'd like there to be more nice public buildings than we have... at some point we stopped doing them.)

The difficulty is that, even if you think the church has a ministry to everyone, it's increasingly hard to sustain, since it's very definitely not everyone paying to keep the roofs on and the clergy in rich tea biscuits. And whilst the CofE has lots of assets, a lot of them are pretty hard to realise and it also has a lot of liabilities. (Not quite at a "pension fund with a church attached" level, but not hugely far off.)

None of this has much to do with establishment, either.

Gary_Burton said:

I can see him going

HYUFD said:

RandallFlagg said:

Can Labour remove the Tories from office without the Midlands? Yes, if the Tories get thrashed in the North and London, and lose seats in the South to Labour and the Lib Dems.
But it pretty much rules out Labour getting more than 300 seats unless there's some incredibly significant recovery in Scotland.

Indeed, Blair and New Labour won the Midlands and Scotland comfortably in 1997.

Starmer it seems has zero chance of winning either, so while he can still become PM with SNP and/or LD support he is unlikely to win a majority let alone a 1997 style landslide

I can see Labour winning 300 seats without doing particularly well in the Midlands but can now potentially see loads of seats in Lancashire, Durham and Yorkshire reverting to Labour.

Really the Midlands and Scotland are a barrier to overall majority now. I don't see more than 5-10 seats in the latter TBH although could go possibly up to 15-20 at a subsequent election.

Indeed, the Tories likely face near wipeout in London next month and losses from a low base in the North and Scotland and Wales but better than expected results in the Midlands could save his bacon

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

You said parishioners can automatically get married in the CofE. They can't. The CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages. As you say if the priest is ok with it Divorcees can be married. A same sex marriage in a CofE church would not be recognised in law. So you were wrong. Not a biggie though.

OK heterosexual parishioners (ie still the majority) can get married in C of E churches

Whew, thank goodness the majority are not affected by this discrimination. It's ok when it's only a minority.

I believe the church has every right to stick to marriage only being for heterosexual couples. As a religion it’s a belief system. The state allows marriage for same sex couples, rightly in my opinion, but there should be no compulsion for a religion to.

Wonder who that is:

Inbound Joint Base Andrews 👇

🇺🇦 Ukrainian Government A319

#Ukraine #SlavaUkraine

https://twitter.com/CivMilAir/status/1516896526257303555

GIN1138 said:

HYUFD said:

Anabobazina said:

The French presidential debate seems very long. Is it three hours?

Approaching midnight French time and they are still droning on
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220420-live-macron-and-le-pen-face-off-in-debate-ahead-of-french-presidential-run-off

I must say the French are much more interesting when they rioting, setting fire to things and fighting in the streets...

Now finished at 11 50pm French time

FrankBooth said:

TOPPING said:

StillWaters said:

TOPPING said:

Farooq said:

FrankBooth said:

Sorry to go on about the war but....

Has anyone seen or heard from an expert predicting that the Russians are likely to make a major breakthrough in the Donbass? I'm struck by the near universal scepticism from pretty much everyone I listen to or read. At the start of the war many were predicting Kiev would fall in days and the whole country within weeks. Now I can hardly find anyone who thinks they'll get very far. Quite a turnaround. There is a difference between unlikely and impossible and wars are unpredictable beasts. I hope the pendulum hasn't swung back too far the other way and the experts aren't herding in their views.

I think it's a mug's game trying to predict what's going to happen. There's probably nobody in the world that has the necessary information: emplacements, numbers, state of equipment, morale, political will, discipline. All of these things are subject to concealment and misinformation. You'd be lucky to find someone who had a good overview of all this on one side, let alone both.

A point which, when made weeks ago, was met with near universal condemnation on here.

That was because your spin was “all misinformation … can’t believe anything … no way is Ukraine winning”

Not at all. I queried the certainty with which people said Ukraine was winning. Is Ukraine winning?

They certainly believe they will win. But it requires Nato countries to get serious about supporting them. Estonia has given more military aid than France! Germany is endlessly prevaricating.

As I think you noted there have been proxy wars all over the world between the West and Russia/USSR for the past few decades without anyone thinking it would turn nuclear.

This time perhaps people are not so sure.

FrankBooth said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

LostPassword said:

FrankBooth said:

Sorry to go on about the war but....

Has anyone seen or heard from an expert predicting that the Russians are likely to make a major breakthrough in the Donbass? I'm struck by the near universal scepticism from pretty much everyone I listen to or read. At the start of the war many were predicting Kiev would fall in days and the whole country within weeks. Now I can hardly find anyone who thinks they'll get very far. Quite a turnaround. There is a difference between unlikely and impossible and wars are unpredictable beasts. I hope the pendulum hasn't swung back too far the other way and the experts aren't herding in their views.

I can't think of anything specific, but I do remember that Alastair Meeks had a different impression, writing that:

"We keep being told by military strategists that this is a very different proposition from the battleground in northern Ukraine and we should not assume that just because the Russians failed in their assault on Kyiv that they will fail to make progress in the Donbas."

There had also been some nervous pointing towards the potential for encirclement of the JFO before the withdrawal from around Kyiv.

There is a lot of uncertainty, and as I think one of the analysts on twitter said, "war is a series of contingent events," but if Ukraine are to emerge victorious then it's hard to think of a possible opening eight weeks to the war that would be more likely to lead them in that direction.

There is certainly a case for believing that the Russians are now pursuing their best strategy, having exhausted all the other possibilities.

Personally I think they have handed the West an extraordinary opportunity to give them a massive arse-kicking, without making it too embarrassingly obvious that is what is going on. Of course this isn't much solace to the poor sods caught up in the war, but at least the Ukranian Nation is likely to emerge very much stronger in the long run. It will be a tough journey, but they are likely to get there in the end.

Yes but why is the west being so half-hearted? Maybe they don't want to make a big thing about the support they are providing to Ukraine - spare parts but not actual fighter jets????? - but I'm starting to wonder if many in Nato really want Ukraine to win.

Did the Russians have any difficulty in providing direct assistance to the North Vietnamese.

I think it's the nuclear angle. There will be many worried at what Putin's reaction will be to a total defeat in Ukraine. Suppose the Russian army is bled dry in the Donbas, and then collapses, with the Ukrainians chasing them to the border, and towards Crimea - Putin might panic and turn to nuclear weapons.

It might then appear to be for the greater good for Ukraine only to fight Russia to a standstill, in the hopes of using sanctions and the failure of the Russian army as leverage to negotiate Russia out of Ukraine. Or, somewhat less negatively, a gradual Ukrainian victory, pushing Russia back bit by bit, would avoid a sudden catastrophic trigger that might lead to a nuclear response.

Given what Russia has done in occupied territory I find it hard to accept any continued Russian occupation of Ukrainian territory as an outcome that is for the greater good - but how to avoid the Russian use of nuclear weapons in the face of a conventional defeat?

The only other possibility that I can think of would be to have a nuclear power join the war on Ukraine's side, and place Ukraine under the defence of their nuclear deterrence.

Stuartinromford said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

In that case, the C of E should go into the wedding venues business. Properly. Either be a religion, or a wedding venue rented out to all and sundry.

I don't mind the C of E being used by people who want to get hatched, matched and dispatched; it's the sort of being present for peoples' lives that the church should be about. Though saying that it's only for the beauty of the location feels a bit off. Besides, there are plenty of drab church buildings and properly attractive civic registry offices. (Though I'd like there to be more nice public buildings than we have... at some point we stopped doing them.)

The difficulty is that, even if you think the church has a ministry to everyone, it's increasingly hard to sustain, since it's very definitely not everyone paying to keep the roofs on and the clergy in rich tea biscuits. And whilst the CofE has lots of assets, a lot of them are pretty hard to realise and it also has a lot of liabilities. (Not quite at a "pension fund with a church attached" level, but not hugely far off.)

None of this has much to do with establishment, either.

It does as Parish weddings, for a fee and funerals keep churches active in their community, not just with services for the faithful

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

You said parishioners can automatically get married in the CofE. They can't. The CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages. As you say if the priest is ok with it Divorcees can be married. A same sex marriage in a CofE church would not be recognised in law. So you were wrong. Not a biggie though.

OK heterosexual parishioners (ie still the majority) can get married in C of E churches

Whew, thank goodness the majority are not affected by this discrimination. It's ok when it's only a minority.

I believe the church has every right to stick to marriage only being for heterosexual couples. As a religion it’s a belief system. The state allows marriage for same sex couples, rightly in my opinion, but there should be no compulsion for a religion to.

You do wonder why same sex couples would want to get married in and by an institution which so transparently loathes them.

IshmaelZ said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

You said parishioners can automatically get married in the CofE. They can't. The CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages. As you say if the priest is ok with it Divorcees can be married. A same sex marriage in a CofE church would not be recognised in (secular, civil) law, however. So you were wrong. Not a biggie though.

Like complaining that the local rugby club doesn't arrange 11 man a side matches where one side bowls leather balls at the other between the wickets during the summer months, because parliament has redefined rugby on a more inclusive basis. So what?

You are going to have to make that point a whole lot more intelligible before I am able to respond.

Tres said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Re: condoms & Catholics, in the USA the Roman Catholic Church fought tooth and nail against condoms, and later the pill. For example, lobbying for state laws (such as in Connecticut) banning their sale.

Yet IIRC by 1970s approx. 90% of Catholic women in USA capable of childbearing were using the pill or condoms, and only small minority the church-approved rhythm method. Most did NOT tell their priest about it, or make a big deal about it socially or politically.

But they did it anyway. Most remaining committed Catholics - in belief that, on this issue, they are NOT the ones out of step with true religion.

Rather it's popes & priests who err - and despite what some of THEM think, they are NOT the Church.

Problem is the US is now stuffed full of doctors who won't prescribe birth control to women.

It's definitely an issue. But methinks "stuffed" is exaggerated.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/refusing-provide-health-services

FrankBooth said:

TOPPING said:

StillWaters said:

TOPPING said:

Farooq said:

FrankBooth said:

Sorry to go on about the war but....

Has anyone seen or heard from an expert predicting that the Russians are likely to make a major breakthrough in the Donbass? I'm struck by the near universal scepticism from pretty much everyone I listen to or read. At the start of the war many were predicting Kiev would fall in days and the whole country within weeks. Now I can hardly find anyone who thinks they'll get very far. Quite a turnaround. There is a difference between unlikely and impossible and wars are unpredictable beasts. I hope the pendulum hasn't swung back too far the other way and the experts aren't herding in their views.

I think it's a mug's game trying to predict what's going to happen. There's probably nobody in the world that has the necessary information: emplacements, numbers, state of equipment, morale, political will, discipline. All of these things are subject to concealment and misinformation. You'd be lucky to find someone who had a good overview of all this on one side, let alone both.

A point which, when made weeks ago, was met with near universal condemnation on here.

That was because your spin was “all misinformation … can’t believe anything … no way is Ukraine winning”

Not at all. I queried the certainty with which people said Ukraine was winning. Is Ukraine winning?

They certainly believe they will win. But it requires Nato countries to get serious about supporting them. Estonia has given more military aid than France! Germany is endlessly prevaricating.

Germany isn’t prevaricating. They are obfuscating. They have no intention of helping Ukraine

TOPPING said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

TOPPING said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

Carnyx said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it

A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.

hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"

On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.

shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs

If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.

No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.

The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway

Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.

The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.

Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.

Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church

Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?

If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.

And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?

And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.

Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.

The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church

Largest does not equate established.

It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do

But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?

47% C of E, 10% Roman Catholic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England

And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID

What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.

Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees

The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.

Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.

As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.

What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).

Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.

Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners

Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.

Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:

one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish;
one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more;
one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more;
one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime;
their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.

Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now

Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.

Yes but most of those who are getting married will be mixed sex (albeit I expect in time same sex blessings will be allowed in C of E churches if the vicar is willing).

Divorcees already can get married in Church of England churches if the priest agrees

You said parishioners can automatically get married in the CofE. They can't. The CofE doesn't allow same sex marriages. As you say if the priest is ok with it Divorcees can be married. A same sex marriage in a CofE church would not be recognised in law. So you were wrong. Not a biggie though.

OK heterosexual parishioners (ie still the majority) can get married in C of E churches

Whew, thank goodness the majority are not affected by this discrimination. It's ok when it's only a minority.

I believe the church has every right to stick to marriage only being for heterosexual couples. As a religion it’s a belief system. The state allows marriage for same sex couples, rightly in my opinion, but there should be no compulsion for a religion to.

You do wonder why same sex couples would want to get married in and by an institution which so transparently loathes them.

People seem to get married in church for the building. I find it really odd that people who are not at all religious, don’t believe in god etc will make vows to the person they intend to be with for life that include a mystic sky fairy they don’t believe in. So they are lying at the point of making the vows... Is it any wonder the divorce rate is so high!