Punters think there will be a Johnson VONC but he’ll win it – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Yeah. I think monarchy is a silly concept but it was touching to hear on the car radio so many really moved by today. People have had a rough time, let's enjoy seeing real pleasure.kjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
Me, I was delivering leaflet bundles to the network. Life goes on!3 -
Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin0 -
These people are insane.williamglenn said:Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin
They’d have called Attlee a warmonger ffs0 -
The Bidens send congratulations to the Queen on her Jubilee
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1532342847810191361?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA3 -
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.0 -
Are they wrong? Sanctions have forced the sale of Chelsea and the price of gas has skyrocketed to the benefit of, erm, Russia. Now, if the Americans had undertaken to protect Ukrainian exports by sea, things might have been different.CorrectHorseBattery said:
These people are insane.williamglenn said:Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin
They’d have called Attlee a warmonger ffs0 -
If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.0
-
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
0 -
Yes, I think people are underestimating how hard it will be to win. I'd agree that there are more than 54 who will vote against him, as even though they have been too gutless to send in a letter if the threshold is reached they will have no option but to make a call, but add up loyalists to Boris, loyalists for the Leader (whoever it is), the ideological supporters (no laughter please), those who think it would cause more chaos than Boris staying, those who fear who might succeed him, and those with no other options, and a majority for Boris still looks very achieveable.Sandpit said:
180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place.ThomasNashe said:On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.3 -
Yup - 15% achieved and everything changes.ThomasNashe said:
Yes, but all the calculations change once the VONC is called. Plenty of MPs don’t think it’s the right time for one, but if it happens, that doesn’t mean they’ll support Johnson.Sandpit said:
180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place.ThomasNashe said:On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
All Conservative MPs then have to consider whether they have confidence in the PM delivering them another election victory. I suspect the doubters are a very much chunkier number than those prepared to write a letter. Indeed, there may well be a very large number of abstainers who Team Boris think they have in their back pocket.2 -
We won't, though she has now become more conservative than in her younger days and backs the monarchy and Trident and hard Brexit now while also being more right-wing than Johnson on economicsCorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
0 -
I prefer the sound of a Griffon, personally.Scott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff0 -
She’s a RepublicanDecrepiterJohnL said:
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
1 -
You’re a very serious bloke aren’t you HYUFD, maybe let your hair down once in a whileHYUFD said:
We won't, though she has now become more conservative than in her younger days and backs the monarchy and Trident and hard Brexit now while also being more right-wing than Johnson on economicsCorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
2 -
Is, or was?CorrectHorseBattery said:
She’s a RepublicanDecrepiterJohnL said:
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
1 -
They seem to be under the impression that economic sanctions were expected to bring Russia to its knees at once. They explicit refer to 'no immediate sign' of Russia pulling out.williamglenn said:Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin
The bit about the weapons only adds to that impression, as they are stating as you quote that the economic sanctions were expected to win the war as sending weapons is proof the 'plan' has failed. That's just dumb.
But really it seems like a lot words to simply argue 'The war comes at an economic cost', as if no one had noticed.
Few want outright Ukrainian capitulation as the price for stopping that, but neither do most think the war will last forever - a deal of some kind to end it is implicit, but that there will be a lot more fighting before that can be contemplated is usually accepted, since Ukraine and Russia would need to see a deal as a better option if victory is not possible. For different reasons neither is ready for that, so I don't see what paragraph after paragraph of 'war causes economic harm' is for.1 -
Hey Rob haven’t seen you around so much lately. Hope you are keeping wellRobD said:
Is, or was?CorrectHorseBattery said:
She’s a RepublicanDecrepiterJohnL said:
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
0 -
I am well, thank you. And likewise to you, too.CorrectHorseBattery said:
Hey Rob haven’t seen you around so much lately. Hope you are keeping wellRobD said:
Is, or was?CorrectHorseBattery said:
She’s a RepublicanDecrepiterJohnL said:
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
0 -
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing0 -
On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….1 -
Idiots are easily pleased Nick.NickPalmer said:
Yeah. I think monarchy is a silly concept but it was touching to hear on the car radio so many really moved by today. People have had a rough time, let's enjoy seeing real pleasure.kjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
Me, I was delivering leaflet bundles to the network. Life goes on!
PS: and moved it seems.0 -
That's nice. But it is leaks from the royals of both sides who fuel the rumours of problems, and presumably not just to sell papers.Foxy said:
She is looking after the young cousins on the non-working Royals balcony it seems. The Royals seem to be able to rub along in away that the Royalists struggle to do so.RobD said:
She's not in the main picture of those standing on the balcony. That's a shot from a window during the trooping of the colour.WhisperingOracle said:
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.Leon said:
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or HarryWhisperingOracle said:Leon said:Looks like the monarchy has survived "Meghan's Racist Bombshell", then
I think partly thanks to the Queen being unfussed by all the quarrels, weaponised on social media for various culture war quarrels on both sides - there's Megan back on the balcony, and Liz happy with it all.
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1532336247007592449?t=97JQsIOLN01TIpmBh8Ny8Q&s=19
0 -
Pure cognitive dissonance.kjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
A republican came on here and said "Republic. Now." just as the celebrations were about to start.
I said "Dick" because it was a remarkably dickish thing to do. Whatever your views on the monarchy (and, yes, I am a fan) this bank holiday is to celebrate the lifetime achievement of a lady who's given our country over 70 years of dedicated service. Indeed, one who's served the whole world. See Barack Obama's tribute, who I'm sure you'd agree is no monarchist.
It's not a day to piss all over that - which so many republicans seemingly can't help themselves doing - because they are frustrated and fearful such events will make the monarchy more popular and want to assert themselves.
You need to take a look at all the facts in future before posting such comments, and possibly take a look in the mirror too.
And it's absolutely no coincidence that the people that have gone around "liking" all these posts are the usual suspects: the arch-Left-wing, ultra-Remain and Corbynista herd.
This all comes as a package - and it's a package of been embarrassment and self-hatred of this country.2 -
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.HYUFD said:
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.1 -
Why couldn't Attlee have just believe in peace more and talked about how war is horrible? That's what real peacemakers do. Did no one just try being nice to one another?CorrectHorseBattery said:
These people are insane.williamglenn said:Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin
They’d have called Attlee a warmonger ffs1 -
https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1532312890451144704
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life1 -
Not from the Queen, ever. Immediately after the whole row started she issued a statement, which was expected to come down hard on one side - except it didn't, and was vaguely generous to both. The rest of the family still have a lot to learn from her.kle4 said:
That's nice. But it is leaks from the royals of both sides who fuel the rumours of problems, and presumably not just to sell papers.Foxy said:
She is looking after the young cousins on the non-working Royals balcony it seems. The Royals seem to be able to rub along in away that the Royalists struggle to do so.RobD said:
She's not in the main picture of those standing on the balcony. That's a shot from a window during the trooping of the colour.WhisperingOracle said:
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.Leon said:
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or HarryWhisperingOracle said:Leon said:Looks like the monarchy has survived "Meghan's Racist Bombshell", then
I think partly thanks to the Queen being unfussed by all the quarrels, weaponised on social media for various culture war quarrels on both sides - there's Megan back on the balcony, and Liz happy with it all.
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1532336247007592449?t=97JQsIOLN01TIpmBh8Ny8Q&s=190 -
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mixMrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
0 -
LOL, don't get your union jack panties in a tangle Luv. The grifters will be with us for a long time yet.Casino_Royale said:
Pure cognitive dissonance.kjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
A republican came on here and said "Republic. Now." just as the celebrations were about to start.
I said "Dick" because it was a remarkably dickish thing to do. Whatever your views on the monarchy (and, yes, I am a fan) this bank holiday is to celebrate the lifetime achievement of a lady who's given our country over 70 years of dedicated service. Indeed, one who's served the whole world. See Barack Obama's tribute, who I'm sure you'd agree is no monarchist.
It's not a day to piss all over that - which so many republicans seemingly can't help themselves doing - because they are frustrated and fearful such events will make the monarchy more popular and want to assert themselves.
You need to take a look at all the facts in future before posting such comments, and possibly take a look in the mirror too.
And it's absolutely no coincidence that the people that have gone around "liking" all these posts are the usual suspects: the arch-Left-wing, ultra-Remain and Corbynista herd.
This all comes as a package - and it's a package of been embarrassment and self-hatred of this country.0 -
There has to be 54 who believe they can get 180 to finish him off. The consequences of coming at a vengeful shit like Johnson and missing will be dreadful.kle4 said:
Yes, I think people are underestimating how hard it will be to win. I'd agree that there are more than 54 who will vote against him, as even though they have been too gutless to send in a letter if the threshold is reached they will have no option but to make a call, but add up loyalists to Boris, loyalists for the Leader (whoever it is), the ideological supporters (no laughter please), those who think it would cause more chaos than Boris staying, those who fear who might succeed him, and those with no other options, and a majority for Boris still looks very achieveable.Sandpit said:
180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place.ThomasNashe said:On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
Even if he is toppled he is going to cause absolute mayhem from the backbenches and that also has to be part of the calculation.0 -
Whilst I am relatively confident about the long term survial of the institution, the reports that she had to step in to sort out petty arguments around the arrangements for her husband's funeral was not very encouraging.WhisperingOracle said:
Not from the Queen, ever. Immediately if this whole row she started she issued a statement, which was expected to come down hard on one side - except it didn't, and was vaguely generous to both. The rest of the family still have a lot to learn from her.kle4 said:
That's nice. But it is leaks from the royals of both sides who fuel the rumours of problems, and presumably not just to sell papers.Foxy said:
She is looking after the young cousins on the non-working Royals balcony it seems. The Royals seem to be able to rub along in away that the Royalists struggle to do so.RobD said:
She's not in the main picture of those standing on the balcony. That's a shot from a window during the trooping of the colour.WhisperingOracle said:
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.Leon said:
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or HarryWhisperingOracle said:Leon said:Looks like the monarchy has survived "Meghan's Racist Bombshell", then
I think partly thanks to the Queen being unfussed by all the quarrels, weaponised on social media for various culture war quarrels on both sides - there's Megan back on the balcony, and Liz happy with it all.
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1532336247007592449?t=97JQsIOLN01TIpmBh8Ny8Q&s=191 -
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexualsIshmaelZ said:
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mixMrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….0 -
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!MrEd said:
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.HYUFD said:
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.0 -
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!1 -
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.1 -
Good message from Macron too and even AlbaneseHYUFD said:The Bidens send congratulations to the Queen on her Jubilee
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1532342847810191361?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1532259346398298118?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1532327805769224192?s=20&t=PVWCQiiEaPP7wyKQUrDFYg1 -
If it wants to survive, Charles will need to watch and learn from her consensual managerial style - he's already not bad on the cultural consensus and tolerance front, and arguably better than a lot of the polarised modern right and left in that area.kle4 said:
Whilst I am relatively confident about the long term survial of the institution, the reports that she had to step in to sort out petty arguments around the arrangements for her husband's funeral was not very encouraging.WhisperingOracle said:
Not from the Queen, ever. Immediately if this whole row she started she issued a statement, which was expected to come down hard on one side - except it didn't, and was vaguely generous to both. The rest of the family still have a lot to learn from her.kle4 said:
That's nice. But it is leaks from the royals of both sides who fuel the rumours of problems, and presumably not just to sell papers.Foxy said:
She is looking after the young cousins on the non-working Royals balcony it seems. The Royals seem to be able to rub along in away that the Royalists struggle to do so.RobD said:
She's not in the main picture of those standing on the balcony. That's a shot from a window during the trooping of the colour.WhisperingOracle said:
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.Leon said:
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or HarryWhisperingOracle said:Leon said:Looks like the monarchy has survived "Meghan's Racist Bombshell", then
I think partly thanks to the Queen being unfussed by all the quarrels, weaponised on social media for various culture war quarrels on both sides - there's Megan back on the balcony, and Liz happy with it all.
https://twitter.com/Daily_Express/status/1532336247007592449?t=97JQsIOLN01TIpmBh8Ny8Q&s=192 -
I would imagine it as a grey, mediocre, joyless nation with everyone singing Kumbaya in organised weekly social groups. A sort of anglicised version of West Germany.kle4 said:
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!MrEd said:
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.HYUFD said:
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.0 -
Backbenches hold no continuing allure for Boris. They were a holding pattern until he got the top job.Dura_Ace said:
There has to be 54 who believe they can get 180 to finish him off. The consequences of coming at a vengeful shit like Johnson and missing will be dreadful.kle4 said:
Yes, I think people are underestimating how hard it will be to win. I'd agree that there are more than 54 who will vote against him, as even though they have been too gutless to send in a letter if the threshold is reached they will have no option but to make a call, but add up loyalists to Boris, loyalists for the Leader (whoever it is), the ideological supporters (no laughter please), those who think it would cause more chaos than Boris staying, those who fear who might succeed him, and those with no other options, and a majority for Boris still looks very achieveable.Sandpit said:
180 MPs have to vote him out. Right now, it looks like the rebels don’t even have the 54 required to call that vote in the first place.ThomasNashe said:On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
Even if he is toppled he is going to cause absolute mayhem from the backbenches and that also has to be part of the calculation.
He'll sod off from Westminster and start earning money immediately.3 -
Some of my relatives tried an experiment -kle4 said:
Why couldn't Attlee have just believe in peace more and talked about how war is horrible? That's what real peacemakers do. Did no one just try being nice to one another?CorrectHorseBattery said:
These people are insane.williamglenn said:Another call for appeasement from the Putin Guardian:
It is now three months since the west launched its economic war against Russia, and it is not going according to plan.
[...]
If proof were needed that sanctions are not working, then President Joe Biden’s decision to supply Ukraine with advanced rocket systems provides it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/russia-economic-war-ukraine-food-fuel-price-vladimir-putin
They’d have called Attlee a warmonger ffs
1) Go along with the people putting you on train cattle cars.
2) Get your sister to smile at a guard, to give you a chance to smash his head in with a piece of broken fishplate. Then leave.
The killer vs pacifists wins the vote, 1/00 -
No, that'd be if I was running things, without the kumbaya.MrEd said:
I would imagine it as a grey, mediocre, joyless nation with everyone singing Kumbaya in organised weekly social groups. A sort of anglicised version of West Germany.kle4 said:
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!MrEd said:
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.HYUFD said:
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.0 -
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.1 -
'Even Albanese'HYUFD said:
Good message from Macron too and even AlbaneseHYUFD said:The Bidens send congratulations to the Queen on her Jubilee
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1532342847810191361?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1532259346398298118?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1532327805769224192?s=20&t=PVWCQiiEaPP7wyKQUrDFYg
Even if he is not a monarchist I'd think as one of her PMs he is more obliged than Macron to make congratulations at such a moment.0 -
Gracious speech from Macron. He should have ended it with a heartfelt "God Save the Queen" just to annoy the French secularists and IslamistsHYUFD said:
Good message from Macron too and even AlbaneseHYUFD said:The Bidens send congratulations to the Queen on her Jubilee
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1532342847810191361?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1532259346398298118?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1532327805769224192?s=20&t=PVWCQiiEaPP7wyKQUrDFYg1 -
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.MrEd said:
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexualsIshmaelZ said:
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mixMrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
0 -
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.3 -
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1532251725603692545?s=20&t=PVWCQiiEaPP7wyKQUrDFYgCorrectHorseBattery said:
She’s a RepublicanDecrepiterJohnL said:
Why? Did he get the 150/1 against Truss?CorrectHorseBattery said:If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
0 -
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.0 -
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.MarqueeMark said:
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!0 -
The Trans-TERF wars are destroying it from within. The inconsistencies are so profound and unsustainable. I hear it is not a happy place to workCasino_Royale said:
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.0 -
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?malcolmg said:
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.MarqueeMark said:
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!
2 -
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearmalcolmg said:
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.MarqueeMark said:
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!0 -
Happy Platty Joobs.
The Queen’s great, ain’t she?
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.5 -
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1532312890451144704
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*0 -
So glad that the Depp-Heard verdict hasn't been co-opted into the endless ballache of the culture war. Damn close run thing though.3
-
The FT are running an article on what BoZo must do to win back Waitrose woman.
All sensible stuff, which would have the headbangers submitting letters faster than a magic owl...0 -
If only it wasn't for the bloody Covid I'd be popping out for a pint at my local later on.
https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1532357173006712837?s=20&t=K4yctYcFzmzTcol8IQD6nw
0 -
The weird thing about those suggestions is that they need spelling out at all.Scott_xP said:The FT are running an article on what BoZo must do to win back Waitrose woman.
All sensible stuff, which would have the headbangers submitting letters faster than a magic owl...
They are fucking obvious to anyone with even the smallest dose of “conservatism”, which doesn’t seem to include anyone in the current Cabinet.2 -
Yes, sadly it's increasingly like the Telegraph in this respect. Was always much more open-minded under Alan Rusbridger.Casino_Royale said:
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.0 -
Was it the Life and Loves of a She-Devil when the wronged wife let’s herself be whipped by the judge so her ex-husband gets a longer jail sentence? Don’t know why the reference to Mary Archer made me think of that.IshmaelZ said:
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.MrEd said:
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexualsIshmaelZ said:
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mixMrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….1 -
Yep, it’s definitely gone downhill since the current editor took over. It’s largely clickbait now.WhisperingOracle said:
Yes, sadly it's increasingly like the Telegraph in this respect. Was always much more open-minded under Alan Rusbridger.Casino_Royale said:
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.0 -
You’re not getting my vote.kle4 said:
No, that'd be if I was running things, without the kumbaya.MrEd said:
I would imagine it as a grey, mediocre, joyless nation with everyone singing Kumbaya in organised weekly social groups. A sort of anglicised version of West Germany.kle4 said:
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!MrEd said:
Which is totally true. Republicans - not the US sort - generally tend to be a miserable, moralistic, self-righteous bunch who drone on about the so-called inequities of the monarchy. Imagine having a nation of Farooqs in charge of things.HYUFD said:
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainerskjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
My own vision would be a 24 hour version of Las Vegas-by-Europe. And no Kumbaya.1 -
What about those Scots born people who live in say, England? What if they had voted as well?malcolmg said:
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.MarqueeMark said:
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!1 -
What saves the Guardian currently is a core group of older columnists - people like Behr, Toynbee, Monbiot and Freedland, and the occasional uncompromising highbrow or academic approach or article that you won't find in the rest of press. "The Long Read" is often good on that that front, for instance.
There's an increasing amount of un-nuanced Telegraph-style culture war clickbait, though, as you say, and often intersecting with celebrity rubbish.2 -
Chris Bryant
@RhonddaBryant
This idea that the “payroll“ will vote to keep
@BorisJohnson
in a secret ballot is deluded. I can think of five ministers who have already told me they will vote him out. And no, you won’t guess who.
Big if true0 -
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.2 -
Typical Glasgow boozer then?Theuniondivvie said:If only it wasn't for the bloody Covid I'd be popping out for a pint at my local later on.
https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1532357173006712837?s=20&t=K4yctYcFzmzTcol8IQD6nw
(hope you shrug off the Bug)1 -
Going a bit mushy here, Ishmael. Off brand.IshmaelZ said:
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1532312890451144704
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*1 -
Dropped in on the neighbouring street's party - lots of good bunting action, some huge Union Jacks with HMQ's face superimposed, cakes, live music and a nice chat with neighbours and our local MP. All very convivial. Hope the weather holds for our street party on Sunday.3
-
Sorry, coming down off dmt. Normal service resumed shortly.kinabalu said:
Going a bit mushy here, Ishmael. Off brand.IshmaelZ said:
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1532312890451144704
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*1 -
My daughter’s school on the Upper East Side will be celebrating Her Majesty’s Jubilee with egg-and-spoon- and three-legged races.
My daughter (7) told me this morning that the Queen has reigned for 92 years, which “must make her very old”.0 -
Saw a lot of "fly a Spitfire" adverts from two different companies over the past few weeks, then they stopped so presumably they are all booked up at several thousand a pop.rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.0 -
I'm saving this comment for 2044.Gardenwalker said:My daughter’s school on the Upper East Side will be celebrating Her Majesty’s Jubilee with egg-and-spoon, and three-legged races later.
My daughter (7) told me this morning that the Queen has reigned for 92 years, which “must make her very old”.0 -
Shit. I mean, good. I mean, dual controls? I mean, over a built-up area? Don't you need type approval or anything?rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.0 -
I should look in the mirror? What? I have posted nothing but praise for today. The only disappointment is people like you trying to ruin it.Casino_Royale said:
Pure cognitive dissonance.kjh said:What is wrong with people?
We have a small group Brexiteers who moan on and on about Brexit far more than any Remainers do and now we have a small group on Monarchists moaning on and on about Republicans far more than any Republican does and today of all days.
Why don't you just enjoy it. I know I am.
A republican came on here and said "Republic. Now." just as the celebrations were about to start.
I said "Dick" because it was a remarkably dickish thing to do. Whatever your views on the monarchy (and, yes, I am a fan) this bank holiday is to celebrate the lifetime achievement of a lady who's given our country over 70 years of dedicated service. Indeed, one who's served the whole world. See Barack Obama's tribute, who I'm sure you'd agree is no monarchist.
It's not a day to piss all over that - which so many republicans seemingly can't help themselves doing - because they are frustrated and fearful such events will make the monarchy more popular and want to assert themselves.
You need to take a look at all the facts in future before posting such comments, and possibly take a look in the mirror too.
And it's absolutely no coincidence that the people that have gone around "liking" all these posts are the usual suspects: the arch-Left-wing, ultra-Remain and Corbynista herd.
This all comes as a package - and it's a package of been embarrassment and self-hatred of this country.0 -
I suspect if the whips have accurate info we might even see a resignation once 54 announced before a voteIshmaelZ said:
Chris Bryant
@RhonddaBryant
This idea that the “payroll“ will vote to keep
@BorisJohnson
in a secret ballot is deluded. I can think of five ministers who have already told me they will vote him out. And no, you won’t guess who.
Big if true0 -
There's a former Indian Air Force dual controls one at Duxford. You can be taken out for a ride in it. And if you turn up clutching your log book with 65 hours in PA-28s in it, and the guy likes you, he'll basically let you fly it for everything except the last 100 yards of the landing.IshmaelZ said:
Shit. I mean, good. I mean, dual controls? I mean, over a built-up area? Don't you need type approval or anything?rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.5 -
I'm not going to deny, that it was an expensive hour. But I now have an hour of Spitfire time in my logbook, and not a lot of people have that.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Saw a lot of "fly a Spitfire" adverts from two different companies over the past few weeks, then they stopped so presumably they are all booked up at several thousand a pop.rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.5 -
Alex Lees and Crawley both trying to find inventive ways to get out, off the same ball.0
-
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.1 -
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein SturgeonRobD said:
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?malcolmg said:
I think you will find Scots born people voted 53% for Yes, it was the Europeans believing the lies it would mean we would be out of teh EU and English immigrants that prevented it. Just shows that you should not allow foreigners to vote on constitutional matters, they have no skin in the game. It was a failed experiment at being fair.MarqueeMark said:
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.malcolmg said:
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.Leon said:
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of BritainFarooq said:
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷Leon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
She was on that same Buck Palace balcony with her mum, dad, sister and Winston Churchill when we officially defeated the Nazis on VE Day
The genius of monarchy is that it links a nation to its own past, with a chain of real humanity. No presidency can ever do this, tho some - like the French presidency - aspire to be monarchies. Which shows that constitutional monarchy - if you can manage it, and you don't get too many wrong uns - is a desirable thing
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
Pass the sick bag indeed!-1 -
Jammy sod!rcs1000 said:
I'm not going to deny, that it was an expensive hour. But I now have an hour of Spitfire time in my logbook, and not a lot of people have that.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Saw a lot of "fly a Spitfire" adverts from two different companies over the past few weeks, then they stopped so presumably they are all booked up at several thousand a pop.rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Though a somewhat older colleague of mine did it for free. He was in the Air Cadets at Belfast when Shorts (I think) were refurbishing or perhaps converting Spitfires (actually, perhaps Seafires?) to two-sater trainers for An t-Aerchór down near Dublin. He got a ride when they were testing them (I suspect the pilot suddenly decided he just had to double and treble check when he saw the hopeful faces of the cadets ...).2 -
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.Gardenwalker said:Happy Platty Joobs.
The Queen’s great, ain’t she?
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
2 -
Any leader who isn’t Johnson has not got the only thing he still does: charisma.
So it will be boring vs boring except Tories will be defending their terrible record.1 -
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.rottenborough said:
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.Gardenwalker said:Happy Platty Joobs.
The Queen’s great, ain’t she?
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.0 -
Very impressed. I was looking to do it, but most flights that are advertised are simulators or flying next to a Spitfire. The actual real thing costs a lot. I am going to do a Pitts Special flight. The only actual flying I have is in gliders and it was so long ago I don't even know where my log book is and anyway I didn't have much time.rcs1000 said:
I'm not going to deny, that it was an expensive hour. But I now have an hour of Spitfire time in my logbook, and not a lot of people have that.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Saw a lot of "fly a Spitfire" adverts from two different companies over the past few weeks, then they stopped so presumably they are all booked up at several thousand a pop.rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.0 -
Excellent, deadpan brag - jealous.rcs1000 said:
You've heard a spitfire?Leon said:
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubileeScott_xP said:
I am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyoneLeon said:The most moving point of the entire day was when the Spitfires flew over Buck House, and the Queen pointed up at them, and clearly said to Prince Charles - “that sound!”
Her Maj can remember the Blitz, and the Battle of Britain, and the sound of Spitfires defending our island
That’s quite something. Republicanism, pfff
I didn't understand what people meant by their amazing sound - until I heard it for myself. There must be some acoustic reason why it is so distinct and even emotive
So yes I get the idea. And I can only imagine what sensations these engines must stir if they personally evoke the Blitz and the Battle of Britain, because you actually heard them then
I've flown a spitfire.
Very easy to fly it was too; I was concerned it might be squirrely and uncontrollable at slow speeds, but other than pretty awful visibility when landing, it was a real joy. And such incredible power - you could blast up to 6,000 feet in moments.
Fairly sure all big V12 aircraft engines sound pretty good. Not been lucky enough to hear a DB601/5 in the wild but heard Merlins in various guises and Griffons, all hairs on the back of the neck stuff. Big radials also excellent.
1 -
This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.7 -
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.0 -
The jury has said otherwise.Gardenwalker said:
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.1 -
The alternative may be this:MrEd said:
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.rottenborough said:
I think it would be nice for Her Majesty to get to know at least one more PM before she goes. I can't imagine she enjoys listening to his blustering, blathering bullshit every Tuesday afternoon anymore than we do.Gardenwalker said:Happy Platty Joobs.
The Queen’s great, ain’t she?
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asas49ZLa980 -
A jury, directed by a judge, thinks differentGardenwalker said:
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.0 -
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.MaxPB said:
The jury has said otherwise.Gardenwalker said:
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.0 -
Our elder daughter used to take an hour or more to get to sleep. We got it into our head that if we read Goodnight Moon to her over and over again it would help. It didn't. Even now that book brings back terrifying flashbacks of our daughter crying in the middle of the night while we desperately patted her tummy or tried "in the great green room there was a telephone" over and over again. Sometimes I would crawl out of the room on my belly so as not to wake her. Madness.IshmaelZ said:
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/marinapurkiss/status/1532312890451144704
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
You know the worst bit? Realising that you are never again going to pick them up off the sofa and carry them up to bed *without waking them.*
By contrast, our son used to roll over and go to sleep about five seconds after his head hit the pillow. Putting him to bed was a pleasure.
And our younger daughter? I can't even remember putting her to bed.
Being a parent of young children is exhausting but so rewarding. I really don't understand fathers who try to exempt themselves from any of it. I was lucky though that my wife breastfed all of them exclusively to 6 months so I never had to feed them in the night, at least.1 -
I see the wiring is unfortunately rather loose ...kinabalu said:
Typical Glasgow boozer then?Theuniondivvie said:If only it wasn't for the bloody Covid I'd be popping out for a pint at my local later on.
https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1532357173006712837?s=20&t=K4yctYcFzmzTcol8IQD6nw
(hope you shrug off the Bug)0 -
Devon verges are always red white and blue in May (scarlet campion, * of bethlehem and cow parsley, bluebells. Much the best time of year, its all manky and tired by JulyCyclefree said:This Jubilee weekend has rather crept up on me unawares. But now there is lots going on of interest. The house is full again. Daughter has returned from Croatia and Greece without, thank God, a weird flint knapper in tow or, even, that "wanker SeanT" - as @Leon calls him - who seems to have been travelling in the same places. (Mothers do worry.) And the weather is glorious.
I did not watch Trooping of the Colour as it's far too nice outside. A few years ago an army friend got us tickets for the rehearsal so we had all the fun of the real thing without the crowds etc.
Yesterday was the start of the Ulverston Music Festival. We are one of the sponsors and get tickets to all the concerts which are very good indeed and cover classical, jazz and world music. The organiser, Anthony Hewitt, is playing the piano in Millom's main square tomorrow at 11 then Broughton and Ulverston before a performance of La Boheme by English Touring Opera. More music over the weekend and Cartmel races plus a Jubilee event at the Village Hall: booze, bonfire etc. The event we had for Guy Fawkes last year was amazing. So it should be fun - regardless of views on the monarchy.
There are knitted royalty items in Ulverston and I find them quite endearing, really.
I have also realised that one of the beds in the front garden is - unintentionally - full of patriotic colours: red geum, white peonies and blue Himalayan poppies. It is quite magnificent.
Sheep are bleating in the fields behind me.
That reminds me: cannot be arsed with politics.0 -
Not at all. Whilst not mentioning him by name she made it absolutely clear in the article that he was the one she was accusing of abuse. It has long been established that you don't have to actually name a person as long as they can be identified by what else you say to have defamed them.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.MaxPB said:
The jury has said otherwise.Gardenwalker said:
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.4 -
A judge has also said otherwise, they case didn't get thrown out, after all. She implicated him as physically abusive towards her. Whether she said directly "Johnny Depp beat me" or not is irrelevant, the implication was defamation. You're getting caught up in a technicality that doesn't exist. She lied in the editorial, she lied under oath in the UK court case and now she's been caught out in that lie and is $8m in a hole.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.MaxPB said:
The jury has said otherwise.Gardenwalker said:
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.MaxPB said:
What's been particularly telling is the lack of sympathy from the sisterhood. My wife and all of her friends were happy to see Depp win. Tim, of PB fame, once said that women are very good at spotting a phony which is why Dave struggled to win them over. That still rings true today. Even going by the Instagram Index™ it's the women I'm friends with who are liking posts about Depp winning, it cuts across politics too, not just the ones I know to be secretly right wing.Leon said:
Read the Guardian's vomit-inducing take on this story. Spends about 3 nanoseconds admitting that Heard is "not entirely perfect, but who is" then spends 607 paragraphs saying Men are Evil and this is the end of Feminism and MeToo is being destroyed, and all this in the paper which hounds out any female journalists - Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman -who dare to question the Trans OrthodoxyMrEd said:
In a way, I feel sorry for Heard but she has brought the misery on her own head. The CPS won’t do anything of the sort, not least because it would show how the Judge was completely hoodwinked by her “I’m a poor defenceless woman” as you said. The fact the BBC article didn’t even mention the fact she committed perjury in the U.K. trial shows how they want to present this ie it’s another example of how juries don’t “get” domestic violence. Expect the womens’ pressure groups to start arguing that the Depp verdict shows domestic violence trials shouldn’t be decided by juries but by judges.MaxPB said:
The trial result proves that jury trials are absolutely essential for a functioning country. Allowing old white male judges to rule on these cases is simply wrong. All she had to do was flutter her eyelashes at the judge and "she couldn't possibly be what they're suggesting".MrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….
The Depp legal team have earned their fee, though. The way they destroyed Heard on the stand was quite excruciating to watch, she admitted multiple times to lying in the British court case. One hopes the CPS make an example out of her and pursue perjury charges, she's openly admitted that she didn't pay the charity money but testified under oath that she did in the UK.
My wife's perspective is that Heard lying about being abused is going to set real victims of abuse back a lot because they will find it more difficult to be believed now. She's pretty angry about it all.0 -
Peter Cook was satirising the summing-up, the day afterwards. On Norman Scott: ‘He is a crook, a fraud, a sponger, a whiner and a parasite. But of course, he could still be telling the truth.’ Fun fact: the pink oboe line was given to Cook by Billy Connolly. Other fun fact: Scott did indeed seem to be a sponger, a whiner and a parasite.IshmaelZ said:
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.MrEd said:
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexualsIshmaelZ said:
No, come on, nobody who had read the quite jawdropping summing up by the judge in Archer vs Daily Star could ever trust the judgment of the English judiciary when there's a fragrant young laydee in the mixMrEd said:On the good old Johnny Depp trial, the conclusion drawn from the article is essentially juries, especially US juries, are think enough to fall for lawyers’ tactics while U.K. judges are wise enough to recognise legal tricks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61673676
There is, of course, another argument that says that decisions by a one person judge risk being overly influenced by the personal views of the judge.
i’m sure if the judgements were reversed (Depp won in the U.K., lost in the US), the BBC would be implying a jury decisions is the best possible course….0
