"Who would want to work for the airline industry any more? Aviation sector’s difficulties are not just about the speed of the pandemic bounceback CAT RUTTER POOLEY" [via g search]
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.
lol. This is PB. Are you new here?
It is just masochistic though. Oh I see what you mean.
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.
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.
Me, I was delivering leaflet bundles to the network. Life goes on!
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
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.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
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.
On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
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.
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.
Yup - 15% achieved and everything changes.
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.
If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
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 economics
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
If we get PM Truss HYUFD’s head is going to explode.
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 economics
You’re a very serious bloke aren’t you HYUFD, maybe let your hair down once in a while
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.
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.
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
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:
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….
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.
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.
Me, I was delivering leaflet bundles to the network. Life goes on!
Idiots are easily pleased Nick. PS: and moved it seems.
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.
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or Harry
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.
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.
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.
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.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
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.
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
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?
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.
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or Harry
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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….
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 mix
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.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
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.
LOL, don't get your union jack panties in a tangle Luv. The grifters will be with us for a long time yet.
On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
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.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or Harry
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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….
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 mix
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexuals
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
Bottled it.
Or rather, the SNP didn't dare make a case for moving away from HM the Q because it was politically toxic.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
Was she on the balcony? I couldn't see her or Harry
From the Daily Mail's headline and pictures, it looks like that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!
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.
On topic, I don’t really understand how Johnson wins a VONC. Mogg and Nadine apart, he has no real supporters.
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.
Mrs May won her confidence vote, even though she couldn’t get her flagship policy through Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
Backbenches hold no continuing allure for Boris. They were a holding pattern until he got the top job.
He'll sod off from Westminster and start earning money immediately.
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?
Some of my relatives tried an experiment -
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.
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!
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.
No, that'd be if I was running things, without the kumbaya.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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:
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….
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 mix
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexuals
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
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!
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.
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 work
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
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!
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.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
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!
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.
Yes, sadly it's increasingly like the Telegraph in this respect. Was always much more open-minded under Alan Rusbridger.
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:
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….
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 mix
Well indeed nor the summing up of the Judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial when it comes to the evidence of publicly open homosexuals
But the Archer one was for real. "A well-known player of the pink oboe" was Peter Cook.
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
The Guardian panders to the prejudices of its own readers.
Yes, sadly it's increasingly like the Telegraph in this respect. Was always much more open-minded under Alan Rusbridger.
Yep, it’s definitely gone downhill since the current editor took over. It’s largely clickbait now.
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.
There are plenty of whinging Republicans on Twitter to match the whinging FBPE Remainers
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.
I'm not sure Farooq would want a nation of Farooqs in charge without any variety, but I doubt it would be that bad!
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.
No, that'd be if I was running things, without the kumbaya.
You’re not getting my vote.
My own vision would be a 24 hour version of Las Vegas-by-Europe. And no Kumbaya.
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
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!
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.
What about those Scots born people who live in say, England? What if they had voted as well?
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.
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.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
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.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
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.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
Shit. I mean, good. I mean, dual controls? I mean, over a built-up area? Don't you need type approval or anything?
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.
Pure cognitive dissonance.
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.
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.
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 true
I suspect if the whips have accurate info we might even see a resignation once 54 announced before a vote
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
Shit. I mean, good. I mean, dual controls? I mean, over a built-up area? Don't you need type approval or anything?
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.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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.
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.
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
The Queen has ears and is old 🤷
It's a bit more than that. She was in London for the Blitz and the Battle of Britain
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
You are going to make me vomit, FFS get a few bevvies inside you and resume normal patter.
Scots had the chance to be a republic in 2014.
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!
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.
So how will blood purity be defined in future referendums?
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
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.
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.
Jammy sod!
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 ...).
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
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.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
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.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 am not old enough to remember the Blitz, but the sound of Merlin engines at full chat is stirring for anyone
I've heard Spitfires, a couple of times. IIRC one was the last big jubilee
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
You've heard a spitfire?
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.
Excellent, deadpan brag - jealous. 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.
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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.
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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.
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.
Let us commemorate her 70 years by turfing out the ghastly oaf currently masquerading as the First Lord of the Treasury.
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.
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
You think Her Majesty’s deserves her last living memory of a PM to be the droning, boring whine of Starmer? Dear oh dear.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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.
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.
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:
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 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".
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.
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.
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 Orthodoxy
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.
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.
But Ms Heard did not actually defame Mr Depp.
The jury has said otherwise.
Yes, but they appear to be wrong on a factual basis, whatever one thinks about Ms Heard’s unreliability.
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
And it is the easiest, most rewarding thing in the whole of parenthood.
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.*
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. 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.
Comments
Aviation sector’s difficulties are not just about the speed of the pandemic bounceback
CAT RUTTER POOLEY" [via g search]
https://www.ft.com/content/5c8142ed-5a72-4de8-bf89-a6d6323a8b4f
Me, I was delivering leaflet bundles to the network. Life goes on!
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
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1532342847810191361?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
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.
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.
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….
PS: and moved it seems.
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.
Johnson has clearly never put his son to bed in his life
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.
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!
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.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1532259346398298118?s=20&t=lKNsfSOo_hKmWnmGcOozkA
https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1532327805769224192?s=20&t=PVWCQiiEaPP7wyKQUrDFYg
He'll sod off from Westminster and start earning money immediately.
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, 1/0
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.
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.
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.*
All sensible stuff, which would have the headbangers submitting letters faster than a magic owl...
https://twitter.com/miffythegamer/status/1532357173006712837?s=20&t=K4yctYcFzmzTcol8IQD6nw
They are fucking obvious to anyone with even the smallest dose of “conservatism”, which doesn’t seem to include anyone in the current Cabinet.
My own vision would be a 24 hour version of Las Vegas-by-Europe. And no Kumbaya.
There's an increasing amount of un-nuanced Telegraph-style culture war clickbait, though, as you say, and often intersecting with celebrity rubbish.
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 true
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.
(hope you shrug off the Bug)
My daughter (7) told me this morning that the Queen has reigned for 92 years, which “must make her very old”.
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.
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 ...).
Let's not forget she reads the Cabinet papers that he doesn't bother reading.
So it will be boring vs boring except Tories will be defending their terrible record.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asas49ZLa98
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.