Charles III has very quickly dispensed with the “don’t touch the monarch” rule, it seems.
To be fair that “don’t touch the monarch” tradition started with King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem for obvious reasons.
“I have seen a time when King Baldwin of Jerusalem, the one who was a leper, beat Saladin although he only had 300 armed men against Saladin's 3,000. But now your sins have come to such a pass that we round you up in the fields like cattle.”
This forum has been the first port of call for upto date news for years, not only on politics but other issues of general interest, so methinks our broadcasters and media have collectively lost all balance over the Queen's death, rather than keeping up with the news and the evil Putin and his henchmen as they are routed by the heroic Ukrainians, we receive it here as the they provide unnecessary 14 days of 24/7 coverage.
It was understandable for the first few days, but we may be witnessing an event of huge magnitude and yet limited to the odd minute or two
That are letting the wider public down and this is not meant to be any criticism of the Queen's death and subsequent state events
They can still provide extensive coverage, but not at the expense of public information on other events away from the Queen's death
To say the least, I am not an expert on the Tatars, so I can't judge the accuracy of this exerpt, but it seems plausible, if incomplete: "Through the fault of the Soviet government, which exported bread from Crimea to other regions of the country, in 1921–1922, at least 76,000 Crimean Tatars died of starvation,[62] which became a disaster for such a small nation. In 1928, the first wave of repression against the Crimean Tatar intelligentsia was launched, in particular, the head of the Crimean ASSR Veli Ibraimov was executed in a fabricated case. In 1938, the second wave of repression against the Crimean Tatar intelligentsia was started, during which many Crimean Tatar writers, scientists, poets, politicians, teachers were killed (Asan Sabri Ayvazov, Usein Bodaninsky, Seitdzhelil Hattatov, Ilyas Tarhan and many others).[63][64][65][66] In May 1944, the USSR State Defense Committee ordered the total deportation of all the Crimean Tatars from Crimea. The deportees were transported in cattle trains to Central Asia, primarily to Uzbekistan. During the deportation and in the first years of being in exile, 46% of Crimean Tatars died.[67] In 1956, Khrushchev exposed Stalin's cult of personality and allowed deported peoples to return to their homeland. The exception was the Crimean Tatars." (Many links omitted.) source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars#Crimean_Tatars
As I understand it, many Crimean Tatars supported the Nazis during World War II.
Does all this history imply that the Tatars have a right to Crimea, since they were the majority there, before World War II? Dunno, but I think a powerful argument can be made for compensating the descendants in some way.
(Then there is the substantial Greek minority in Crimea. Would they prefer being part of Greece?)
I believe Ukraine still has a Pontic Greek minority
Hence Mariopol and Melitopol, Sevastopol. They were Greek cities originally.
= Sebastos polis, for instance: Imperial City.
Odessa was given its name for its intended role in empress Catherine's Greek Plan.
Talking of the diminishment of pop music, as we weren’t, the other day the Guardian, in its listicle desperation, actually had a list of “the 20 best songs by the Arctic Monkeys, ranked in order”
ICON has to be good imo. So you can't have Hitler or a Heavy Metal singer.
Che Guevara is an icon, and I wouldn't describe him as a force for good.
Lemmy was both an icon and a force for good.
Really? I am a Motorhead fan but a "force for good"?
Yes, definitely. Consumed a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for 15 years. Heroic. Also quite a nice guy, apparently, under some circumstances. More of a force for good than, say, Che Guevara, anyway.
Clark Gable and Katherine Hepburn would surely have to be on the list too.
For later stars, James Dean, Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.
James Dean, maybe. Not sure the others could be identified in a line-up as easily as you’d think.
Edit: I presume you mean Audrey Hepburn, if d agree with that.
No, I meant Katherine Hepburn, who was a far bigger star than Audrey Hepburn for a far longer period. Likewise Streep and Connery. Perhaps they just didn't appear in films you like?
The actor James Stewart had a very interesting life. I did not realise he was actually a one-star general and had flown combat missions and was still flying in B52s in the 1960s. I was very surprised when I found out.
Another film star with an interesting history is Hedy Lamarr. Maybe not such a household name now but definitely was in the Hollywood Golden Age. As a refugee from Europe she was looking for ways to support the American war effort and so invented a frequency hopping system for sonar, to prevent torpedo guidance systems being jammed by the enemy. She gave the patent to the Navy but they didn't take her as seriously as they should have done - what does a film star know about sonar? By the 1960's it was embedded in defence systems and is a core part of common protocols today such as bluetooth and GPS.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Clark Gable and Katherine Hepburn would surely have to be on the list too.
For later stars, James Dean, Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.
James Dean, maybe. Not sure the others could be identified in a line-up as easily as you’d think.
Edit: I presume you mean Audrey Hepburn, if d agree with that.
No, I meant Katherine Hepburn, who was a far bigger star than Audrey Hepburn for a far longer period. Likewise Streep and Connery. Perhaps they just didn't appear in films you like?
The actor James Stewart had a very interesting life. I did not realise he was actually a one-star general and had flown combat missions and was still flying in B52s in the 1960s. I was very surprised when I found out.
Another film star with an interesting history is Hedy Lamarr. Maybe not such a household name now but definitely was in the Hollywood Golden Age. As a refugee from Europe she was looking for ways to support the American war effort and so invented a frequency hopping system for sonar, to prevent their guidance systems being jammed by the enemy. She gave the patent to the Navy but they didn't take her as seriously as they should have done - what does a film star know about sonar? By the 1960's it was embedded in defence systems and is a core part of common protocols today such as bluetooth and GPS.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
They've been intending to do it for at least a decade, one hopes they've got the papers prepared and ready to go and haven't been faffing about.
So if Russia is in trouble what is the likely outcome Putin goes to full mobilisation Putin launches nukes
Or Putin is overthrown However even this may not be good for the west if he is replaced with a hardliner nationalist leader
A perilous moment
options for putim:
I think full mobilisation is off the table, if the 2.9 million who might be conscripted started getting call up papers, then that's the one thing that would get them and there family's on the streets.
Nuclear stick, might at first look possible but would they work if the button was pressed? would the men obey the order to press the button? does Putin really want the would to end and all his family to die?
Can he cling to power like Sadam Husain after Golf war 1? maybe but I think it will be harder this time not least with social media, in Russia telegram is big i understand.
I think if he is blamed for starting the war, he is most likely to be replaced by a moderate, if he is blamed for losing a war he will be replaced by a hard liner.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Yes, as mentioned yesterday with the first lot of coverage, I find it incredible that even Southern European newspapers are going into minute detail about the various parts of the ceremony today.
Thread from the defence editor at the Economist, quite a positive analysis of the Ukrainian offensive.
Summary: Russia failed to see the Kharkiv action coming, is short of reserves, has a lot of its least effective units deployed in the region, and is reluctant to commit air power; the Ukrainians have more boots on the ground and are better able to rotate units to permit rest; Russian industry is ramping up military production but still cannot satisfy demand; and Russia is incapable of conducting a mass mobilisation of conscript forces, even were it to formally declare war in an attempt to do so, because Russia lacks the capacity to train, house and equip new units.
Thought is that the Russians will try to retreat to a new defensive line somewhere in the Luhansk oblast and dig in for the Winter.
I am sure the poorly equipped Russian troops will have a fantastic time in the Ukrainian winter.
Clark Gable and Katherine Hepburn would surely have to be on the list too.
For later stars, James Dean, Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.
James Dean, maybe. Not sure the others could be identified in a line-up as easily as you’d think.
Edit: I presume you mean Audrey Hepburn, if d agree with that.
No, I meant Katherine Hepburn, who was a far bigger star than Audrey Hepburn for a far longer period. Likewise Streep and Connery. Perhaps they just didn't appear in films you like?
The actor James Stewart had a very interesting life. I did not realise he was actually a one-star general and had flown combat missions and was still flying in B52s in the 1960s. I was very surprised when I found out.
Another film star with an interesting history is Hedy Lamarr. Maybe not such a household name now but definitely was in the Hollywood Golden Age. As a refugee from Europe she was looking for ways to support the American war effort and so invented a frequency hopping system for sonar, to prevent their guidance systems being jammed by the enemy. She gave the patent to the Navy but they didn't take her as seriously as they should have done - what does a film star know about sonar? By the 1960's it was embedded in defence systems and is a core part of common protocols today such as bluetooth and GPS.
Lamarr was also a very successful businesswoman.
Indeed. There's a nice recent biog of her.
Im minded to quote Blazing Saddles Its Hedley!
Mind you, BS also gave us the brilliant 'Teutonic Twat!'
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
So a decent tip for Megan. "Never ever fly over the Caribbean Sea "
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
Be careful with the word evil Leon. All nations have their reasons for doing things even if they seem unconscionable to us. Remember many of the actions of the British empire could be considered evil
ICON has to be good imo. So you can't have Hitler or a Heavy Metal singer.
Che Guevara is an icon, and I wouldn't describe him as a force for good.
Lemmy was both an icon and a force for good.
Really? I am a Motorhead fan but a "force for good"?
Yes, definitely. Consumed a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for 15 years. Heroic. Also quite a nice guy, apparently, under some circumstances. More of a force for good than, say, Che Guevara, anyway.
He was perhaps a leetle too interested in Nazi memorabilia..
I think we have to watch the oil price the next few days. If it keeps rising something may be wrong....we will have to see
It might be fear that Putin will play his last credible card, and stop oil exports to try and crash the would economy. I think its unlikely, but we all remember a few months ago when the petrel pumps ran dry for a week or so.
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
Be careful with the word evil Leon. All nations have their reasons for doing things even if they seem unconscionable to us. Remember many of the actions of the British empire could be considered evil
ICON has to be good imo. So you can't have Hitler or a Heavy Metal singer.
Che Guevara is an icon, and I wouldn't describe him as a force for good.
Lemmy was both an icon and a force for good.
Really? I am a Motorhead fan but a "force for good"?
Yes, definitely. Consumed a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for 15 years. Heroic. Also quite a nice guy, apparently, under some circumstances. More of a force for good than, say, Che Guevara, anyway.
He was perhaps a leetle too interested in Nazi memorabilia..
Something he shared with Bowie (the Berlin years) then.
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
Be careful with the word evil Leon. All nations have their reasons for doing things even if they seem unconscionable to us. Remember many of the actions of the British empire could be considered evil
Yes, they could. That wouldn't make a similar choice by Russia now less evil.
Things are rarely so black and white, but this time they really were - Putin launched a war of territorial aggression on flimsy pretexts which frequently contradicted one another, proving the territory bit was the real reason. None of the other ones hold up for anyone trying to justify Putin's actions. At best they can try to explain it - NATO, russian speakers etc - but his 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gave the game away on anyone trying that.
ICON has to be good imo. So you can't have Hitler or a Heavy Metal singer.
Che Guevara is an icon, and I wouldn't describe him as a force for good.
Lemmy was both an icon and a force for good.
Really? I am a Motorhead fan but a "force for good"?
Yes, definitely. Consumed a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for 15 years. Heroic. Also quite a nice guy, apparently, under some circumstances. More of a force for good than, say, Che Guevara, anyway.
He was perhaps a leetle too interested in Nazi memorabilia..
IN between doing the obligatory patriotic Spitfires, Airfix had a line in Motorhead Heinkels of late:
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
I liked the late Queen and sad she is no longer with us, but also very sad that this has displaced the news from Ukraine.
The hatreds generated by this war will last generations...sad state of affairs all round....think rcs was way too optimistic about a quick return to prior status quo
Clark Gable and Katherine Hepburn would surely have to be on the list too.
For later stars, James Dean, Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.
James Dean, maybe. Not sure the others could be identified in a line-up as easily as you’d think.
Edit: I presume you mean Audrey Hepburn, if d agree with that.
No, I meant Katherine Hepburn, who was a far bigger star than Audrey Hepburn for a far longer period. Likewise Streep and Connery. Perhaps they just didn't appear in films you like?
The actor James Stewart had a very interesting life. I did not realise he was actually a one-star general and had flown combat missions and was still flying in B52s in the 1960s. I was very surprised when I found out.
Another film star with an interesting history is Hedy Lamarr. Maybe not such a household name now but definitely was in the Hollywood Golden Age. As a refugee from Europe she was looking for ways to support the American war effort and so invented a frequency hopping system for sonar, to prevent torpedo guidance systems being jammed by the enemy. She gave the patent to the Navy but they didn't take her as seriously as they should have done - what does a film star know about sonar? By the 1960's it was embedded in defence systems and is a core part of common protocols today such as bluetooth and GPS.
Lamarr was also a very successful businesswoman.
The short-lived sci-fi TV serial "Timeless" had an episode on Hedy Lamarr. I watched it recently on Netflix. Recommended.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
I liked the late Queen and sad she is no longer with us, but also very sad that this has displaced the news from Ukraine.
Why's that? Ukraine is going to continue to be a story for weeks and months to come (hopefully not years), with any luck even more positive. Anyone who has missed the recent positive developments will find it a welcome surprise is all.
One interesting fact (well, I find it interesting) is that since 1760, which is before the start of the industrial revolution and before America became independent, almost 75% of that period of time (262 years) is accounted for by just three long-reigning monarchs: George III, Victoria and Elizabeth II. They have 193 years of rule between them. The gap between the first and second was just 17 years. The second and third 51 years, and although rather a lot happened between them HMQ's mother spanned that gap.
I find that rather incredible. Firstly, it's not that long ago, and it all goes rather quickly, secondly how these individuals themselves (not just the institution of the monarchy) shaped history.
Clark Gable and Katherine Hepburn would surely have to be on the list too.
For later stars, James Dean, Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.
James Dean, maybe. Not sure the others could be identified in a line-up as easily as you’d think.
Edit: I presume you mean Audrey Hepburn, if d agree with that.
No, I meant Katherine Hepburn, who was a far bigger star than Audrey Hepburn for a far longer period. Likewise Streep and Connery. Perhaps they just didn't appear in films you like?
The actor James Stewart had a very interesting life. I did not realise he was actually a one-star general and had flown combat missions and was still flying in B52s in the 1960s. I was very surprised when I found out.
Another film star with an interesting history is Hedy Lamarr. Maybe not such a household name now but definitely was in the Hollywood Golden Age. As a refugee from Europe she was looking for ways to support the American war effort and so invented a frequency hopping system for sonar, to prevent their guidance systems being jammed by the enemy. She gave the patent to the Navy but they didn't take her as seriously as they should have done - what does a film star know about sonar? By the 1960's it was embedded in defence systems and is a core part of common protocols today such as bluetooth and GPS.
Lamarr was also a very successful businesswoman.
Indeed. There's a nice recent biog of her.
Im minded to quote Blazing Saddles Its Hedley!
Mind you, BS also gave us the brilliant 'Teutonic Twat!'
Appropriate re Ukraine Blazing Saddles quote:
“Unfortunately there is one thing standing between me and that property – the rightful owners.”
A Lebanese singer said her ideal man would be a combination of Hitler, Richard Gere, Al Pacino, Victor Hugo or Shakespeare, Aristotle Onassis and Einstein.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
He did say if 'Charles' has a problem, not that it would in itself be a problem. Charles would I'm sure be pragmatic about the whole business, but in a technical sense a monarch losing a territory would be a problem.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
He did say if 'Charles' has a problem, not that it would in itself be a problem. Charles would I'm sure be pragmatic about the whole business, but in a technical sense a monarch losing a territory would be a problem.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
He did say if 'Charles' has a problem, not that it would in itself be a problem. Charles would I'm sure be pragmatic about the whole business, but in a technical sense a monarch losing a territory would be a problem.
Was Barbados a problem for the old Queen?
Please don't speak about our new Monarch in such disrespectful terms.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
He did say if 'Charles' has a problem, not that it would in itself be a problem. Charles would I'm sure be pragmatic about the whole business, but in a technical sense a monarch losing a territory would be a problem.
Was Barbados a problem for the old Queen?
In the technical sense of no longer being a Head of State it would be a problem for a monarchy. But I doubt she minded in the slightest, and nor should anyone else, at them making a voluntary choice.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
One of the Caribbean islands has decided to become a republic.
ICON has to be good imo. So you can't have Hitler or a Heavy Metal singer.
Che Guevara is an icon, and I wouldn't describe him as a force for good.
Lemmy was both an icon and a force for good.
Really? I am a Motorhead fan but a "force for good"?
Yes, definitely. Consumed a bottle of Jack Daniels every day for 15 years. Heroic. Also quite a nice guy, apparently, under some circumstances. More of a force for good than, say, Che Guevara, anyway.
He was perhaps a leetle too interested in Nazi memorabilia..
IN between doing the obligatory patriotic Spitfires, Airfix had a line in Motorhead Heinkels of late:
I saw them on their first Bomber tour which had a scaffolding 111 going up and down above the stage with flashing lights and sound effects. Quite impressive in those pre cgi days.
Not really been following things closely for some time, but in the update today it's the first time I've seen Zelensky not in his military green T-shirt for some time.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
Because it hurts. It's a rejection. It's a weakening of a bond, however you cut it, and republics are as boring as hell.
I don't like any country becoming a Republic. Jamaica has always been a bit different to other countries in the Carribean and a little bit more traditional and monarchy-like.
I don't want it to go and I'll feel upset if it does.
I think there will be a second wave of ex colonies turning republic, it’s inevitable. No reason this need be a problem for Britain or the royals. The USA is a republic and they love our royals as much there as anywhere.
The only people getting worked up about it being a strategic defeat for the UK will be the oped writers for the New York Times.
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
Be careful with the word evil Leon. All nations have their reasons for doing things even if they seem unconscionable to us. Remember many of the actions of the British empire could be considered evil
Yes, they could. That wouldn't make a similar choice by Russia now less evil.
Things are rarely so black and white, but this time they really were - Putin launched a war of territorial aggression on flimsy pretexts which frequently contradicted one another, proving the territory bit was the real reason. None of the other ones hold up for anyone trying to justify Putin's actions. At best they can try to explain it - NATO, russian speakers etc - but his 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gave the game away on anyone trying that.
The most you can concede is that it was an invasion of a sovereign state, similar to what happened with the US in Iraq. But the americans came up with better reasons. Putin's rants about Ukraine not being a real country, and suggestions that Russia has a 'claim' on the former Soviet states and territories of the Russian empire, were just bizarre. They actually served the purpose of turning the whole of Europe against him. In particular, they made things impossible for Germany, its main 'ally' in the west. Looks like a bad mistake.
The news need to drop the monarchy a bit and start talking about Ukraine. Just WTF is happening there!?
From some reports the Russians seem to be collapsing faster than France in WWII.
The Russians have had their first battlefield defeat since 1942. The Russians were always going to lose the war, but it was likely to be because of a long drawn out guerilla war. A conventional military thrashing is humiliating for them.
Some are talking about Putin being replaced by another nationalist strongman, but nationalist strongmen need military forces to sustain their rule. In Ukraine, Russia is not just losing her army, but her mercenary network, her national reserves, her police forces, her conscript pools. All are getting thrown into the meat grinder because Putin is psychologically unable to admit defeat. No wonder they are putting roadblocks up around the Kremlin.
This forum has been the first port of call for upto date news for years, not only on politics but other issues of general interest, so methinks our broadcasters and media have collectively lost all balance over the Queen's death, rather than keeping up with the news and the evil Putin and his henchmen as they are routed by the heroic Ukrainians, we receive it here as the they provide unnecessary 14 days of 24/7 coverage.
It was understandable for the first few days, but we may be witnessing an event of huge magnitude and yet limited to the odd minute or two
That are letting the wider public down and this is not meant to be any criticism of the Queen's death and subsequent state events
They can still provide extensive coverage, but not at the expense of public information on other events away from the Queen's death
I agree. Momentous things are happening in Ukraine. Of rather more import than the details of who waved at Balmoral.
The hatreds generated by this war will last generations...sad state of affairs all round....think rcs was way too optimistic about a quick return to prior status quo
This site is undergoing the Invasion of the Organ Gobbling Hamster Molesters, it seems. Why not retire this persona and that of WillG and have a think about easing yourself into a role?
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
He did say if 'Charles' has a problem, not that it would in itself be a problem. Charles would I'm sure be pragmatic about the whole business, but in a technical sense a monarch losing a territory would be a problem.
I was rolling with the monarchist "they are we" assumption of the monarchist who did the post.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
Because it hurts. It's a rejection. It's a weakening of a bond, however you cut it, and republics are as boring as hell.
I don't like any country becoming a Republic. Jamaica has always been a bit different to other countries in the Carribean and a little bit more traditional and monarchy-like.
I don't want it to go and I'll feel upset if it does.
Barbados rejected us a few months ago and we seem to have got over it okay.
The news need to drop the monarchy a bit and start talking about Ukraine. Just WTF is happening there!?
From some reports the Russians seem to be collapsing faster than France in WWII.
The Russians have had their first battlefield defeat since 1942. The Russians were always going to lose the war, but it was likely to be because of a long drawn out guerilla war. A conventional military thrashing is humiliating for them.
Some are talking about Putin being replaced by another nationalist strongman, but nationalist strongmen need military forces to sustain their rule. In Ukraine, Russia is not just losing her army, but her mercenary network, her national reserves, her police forces, her conscript pools. All are getting throSame with my stepdaughter, who's been severely ill since having her second vaccination in February. Her immune system seems to have collapsed, basically, and she's become allergic to most foods. She's down to 7 stone and can barely leave her bedroom. Multiple tests, ongoing, with no apparent cause being found. It looks like some kind of MCAS, but no one will diagnose. She was a healthy, fit and active 35 year old and now feels that her life is over. wn into the meat grinder because Putin is psychologically unable to admit defeat. No wonder they are putting roadblocks up around the Kremlin.
I wouldn't get carried away yet. This is a setback for the Russians but the war is a long way from over. There could also be unpredictable blowbacks for the west
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
Be careful with the word evil Leon. All nations have their reasons for doing things even if they seem unconscionable to us. Remember many of the actions of the British empire could be considered evil
Yes, they could. That wouldn't make a similar choice by Russia now less evil.
Things are rarely so black and white, but this time they really were - Putin launched a war of territorial aggression on flimsy pretexts which frequently contradicted one another, proving the territory bit was the real reason. None of the other ones hold up for anyone trying to justify Putin's actions. At best they can try to explain it - NATO, russian speakers etc - but his 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gave the game away on anyone trying that.
The most you can concede is that it was an invasion of a sovereign state, similar to what happened with the US in Iraq. But the americans came up with better reasons. Putin's rants about Ukraine not being a real country, and suggestions that Russia has a 'claim' on the former Soviet states and territories of the Russian empire, were just bizarre. They actually served the purpose of turning the whole of Europe against the him. In particular, they made things impossible for Germany, its main 'ally' in the west. Right now it looks like a massive mistake.
It's hard to imagine, of course, that he could have come up with something that would have meant the West was not outraged. But the fact that various people within the West do eat up his nonsense about NATO expansion and the need for 'independent' spheres, or assumptions about the interests of russian speakers in some irredentist approach, suggests that it is conceivable the response would have been less unified (Hungary excepted) if he had not played to the home crowd quite so obviously by stating it in the terms he did.
It made clear his ambitions stretched to the whole of Ukraine, even if that was wildly overambitious, and that no concession from any party would persuade him, only military defeat could.
I hope I am right in thinking that he genuinely did not expect so much support from the West for Ukraine, not in the tangible ways it has come. Yes, the USA is still doing the heavy lifting, but would they have felt able to do as much without all the diplomatic weight and support of Europe as a whole (Hungary excepted again)? Germany has gotten some flack but really does seem to have rapidly shifted direction, again in a way Putin may not have anticipated.
We've always backed down with Putin, because he has powerful threats to employ, but he doesn't see, to have expected that this time everyone could no longer fool themselves that standing up to him, insofar as backing Ukraine to the hilt with support (even if they would not actively participate) was not necessary. No one (outside stop the war and their far right comrades) could pretend any longer that playing Putin's game would work any longer.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 5h It really does look as though the Russian army is being routed by Ukraine's forces. We could be about to find out how a nuclear power headed by an autocrat will respond to being defeated in a land invasion of its own choosing.
I've just checked every leading newspaper worldwide I can think of. Le Figaro. Bild. Al Jazerra. Times of India. Wall Street Journal. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Globe & Mail. New Zealand Herald. They all still lead with The Queen. One or two have Ukraine too.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
Don't see why Jamaica becoming a Republic would be a problem.
Because it hurts. It's a rejection. It's a weakening of a bond, however you cut it, and republics are as boring as hell.
I don't like any country becoming a Republic. Jamaica has always been a bit different to other countries in the Carribean and a little bit more traditional and monarchy-like.
I don't want it to go and I'll feel upset if it does.
Its not a rejection. Quitting the Commonwealth would be a rejection.
Choosing to elect their own leaders is just self-rule, its not rejecting anything. Its the Commonwealth that is the bonds now and should be the legacy the monarchy leaves behind.
Now HMQ is gone every other realm could abolish the monarchy, it wouldn't be a rejection of anything, as long as the Commonwealth stays together we're still a family of nations even without a shared monarch.
Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?
Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
In a similar situation the Queen would have just given "one of her looks" and that's all it would take. And everyone would laugh and say "she's not happy!"
Yes, it’s an enormous social skill to be able to express a need, want, irritation, whatever, with just a tilt of the head, thereby offering no offence. She had it. He doesn’t. Few do
Chas should have looked to his right, smiled ironically, gestured airily at the misplaced pen, this followed by an amiable shrug as the flunkey moved in to sort it out. No one offended; all fixed
Boris has this ability, to disarm, even while making people do your bidding
But the new King is under intense pressure
I've tried a few times to express what I want with just a tilt of the head. It's never worked. Probably because it requires having slaves and my cupboard is bare on that score.
No, you can do it in pubs, restaurants, shops. Try it. The tilt of the head
Yes I can do a tilt of the head. That's not a problem.
You also need a soupçon of charisma
Back in the 1980s there was a pub near my work, where I could walk in and give a gentle nod and the landlady would instantly pour me a pint. Does that count?
Yes, exactly. Being able to do that with relative strangers is the crucial up-step
Hmmm. There's no audio on the vid clip, and all KCIII does is wave his hand for the desk to be cleared a little so he can put his papers down.
7 seconds of trolling from a republican troll account.
I’m a royalist but the TV images are not good. He looks irritable, querulous and bossy in a bad way. A small man in big shoes
But I agree it is just 7 seconds
Honestly. Twitter sometimes! (Well, Twitter most of the time…) I watched the whole thing and saw it in context. It was fine. He’d just signed a couple of them and moved things around himself because the ornaments were in the way. In context and not cut into a 5 second clip, it was nothing.
The news need to drop the monarchy a bit and start talking about Ukraine. Just WTF is happening there!?
From some reports the Russians seem to be collapsing faster than France in WWII.
The Russians have had their first battlefield defeat since 1942. The Russians were always going to lose the war, but it was likely to be because of a long drawn out guerilla war. A conventional military thrashing is humiliating for them.
Some are talking about Putin being replaced by another nationalist strongman, but nationalist strongmen need military forces to sustain their rule. In Ukraine, Russia is not just losing her army, but her mercenary network, her national reserves, her police forces, her conscript pools. All are getting throSame with my stepdaughter, who's been severely ill since having her second vaccination in February. Her immune system seems to have collapsed, basically, and she's become allergic to most foods. She's down to 7 stone and can barely leave her bedroom. Multiple tests, ongoing, with no apparent cause being found. It looks like some kind of MCAS, but no one will diagnose. She was a healthy, fit and active 35 year old and now feels that her life is over. wn into the meat grinder because Putin is psychologically unable to admit defeat. No wonder they are putting roadblocks up around the Kremlin.
I wouldn't get carried away yet. This is a setback for the Russians but the war is a long way from over. There could also be unpredictable blowbacks for the west
Reversal is possible. People are buoyed and optimistic at present, but I doubt Ukrainian intelligence and defence operations are getting carried away, not while plugged into the intelligence of the alliance powers.
As for blowbacks, well, that's a risk that has to be accepted. Putin's lackeys made nuclear threats simply for people offering support to Ukraine, so there's not much reason to step back from the current level of support in fear, since they've made clear the risk is there even if they do far less.
This forum has been the first port of call for upto date news for years, not only on politics but other issues of general interest, so methinks our broadcasters and media have collectively lost all balance over the Queen's death, rather than keeping up with the news and the evil Putin and his henchmen as they are routed by the heroic Ukrainians, we receive it here as the they provide unnecessary 14 days of 24/7 coverage.
It was understandable for the first few days, but we may be witnessing an event of huge magnitude and yet limited to the odd minute or two
That are letting the wider public down and this is not meant to be any criticism of the Queen's death and subsequent state events
They can still provide extensive coverage, but not at the expense of public information on other events away from the Queen's death
I agree. Momentous things are happening in Ukraine. Of rather more import than the details of who waved at Balmoral.
It needn’t be an either-or anyway. Perfectly possible for networks to bombard us with royal coverage while giving plenty of time to Ukraine.
Spare a thought for the energy crisis though. Not often you expect a debt-funded government splurge of over 100bn to avert historically high energy prices relegated to third place in the news.
The news need to drop the monarchy a bit and start talking about Ukraine. Just WTF is happening there!?
From some reports the Russians seem to be collapsing faster than France in WWII.
The Russians have had their first battlefield defeat since 1942. The Russians were always going to lose the war, but it was likely to be because of a long drawn out guerilla war. A conventional military thrashing is humiliating for them.
Some are talking about Putin being replaced by another nationalist strongman, but nationalist strongmen need military forces to sustain their rule. In Ukraine, Russia is not just losing her army, but her mercenary network, her national reserves, her police forces, her conscript pools. All are getting throSame with my stepdaughter, who's been severely ill since having her second vaccination in February. Her immune system seems to have collapsed, basically, and she's become allergic to most foods. She's down to 7 stone and can barely leave her bedroom. Multiple tests, ongoing, with no apparent cause being found. It looks like some kind of MCAS, but no one will diagnose. She was a healthy, fit and active 35 year old and now feels that her life is over. wn into the meat grinder because Putin is psychologically unable to admit defeat. No wonder they are putting roadblocks up around the Kremlin.
I wouldn't get carried away yet. This is a setback for the Russians but the war is a long way from over. There could also be unpredictable blowbacks for the west
Sockpuppet on sockpuppet action. @rcs1000 check out dem IP addresses.
Owen Jones @OwenJones84 · 5h It really does look as though the Russian army is being routed by Ukraine's forces. We could be about to find out how a nuclear power headed by an autocrat will respond to being defeated in a land invasion of its own choosing.
===
By falling out of a window?
Been out, so sorry if this has already been posted. Huge cache of heavy weaponry captured by the Ukrainians. I mean, staggering.
Yes dreadful, and Mills behind him can see how dreadful it is. When people show you who they are believe them.
Camilla looks properly embarrassed at his behaviour doesn't she?
Trying to be kind he IS under a lot of grief and stress at the moment... But then you remember all the rumours about about his behviour towards staff over the years as well as Diana's assessement of him all those years ago (not up to the "top job") and it makes you wonder what we're in for with the reign of King Charles III...
In a similar situation the Queen would have just given "one of her looks" and that's all it would take. And everyone would laugh and say "she's not happy!"
Yes, it’s an enormous social skill to be able to express a need, want, irritation, whatever, with just a tilt of the head, thereby offering no offence. She had it. He doesn’t. Few do
Chas should have looked to his right, smiled ironically, gestured airily at the misplaced pen, this followed by an amiable shrug as the flunkey moved in to sort it out. No one offended; all fixed
Boris has this ability, to disarm, even while making people do your bidding
But the new King is under intense pressure
I've tried a few times to express what I want with just a tilt of the head. It's never worked. Probably because it requires having slaves and my cupboard is bare on that score.
No, you can do it in pubs, restaurants, shops. Try it. The tilt of the head
Yes I can do a tilt of the head. That's not a problem.
You also need a soupçon of charisma
Back in the 1980s there was a pub near my work, where I could walk in and give a gentle nod and the landlady would instantly pour me a pint. Does that count?
Yes, exactly. Being able to do that with relative strangers is the crucial up-step
Hmmm. There's no audio on the vid clip, and all KCIII does is wave his hand for the desk to be cleared a little so he can put his papers down.
7 seconds of trolling from a republican troll account.
I’m a royalist but the TV images are not good. He looks irritable, querulous and bossy in a bad way. A small man in big shoes
But I agree it is just 7 seconds
Honestly. Twitter sometimes! (Well, Twitter most of the time…) I watched the whole thing and saw it in context. It was fine. He’d just signed a couple of them and moved things around himself because the ornaments were in the way. In context and not cut into a 5 second clip, it was nothing.
I saw it live and spotted it live, and felt uncomfortable watching it. But I didn't say anything at the time because he's just lost his mother and this is all a bit overwhelming, but it was very poor behaviour.
If it wasn't for the fact that he's on the TV camera within 48 hours of his mother dying, because of her dying, I'd be a lot less sympathetic to that sort of behaviour. It was rude.
Comments
Which of course is "Roll Away the Stone".
"Sha la la la push push".
It was understandable for the first few days, but we may be witnessing an event of huge magnitude and yet limited to the odd minute or two
That are letting the wider public down and this is not meant to be any criticism of the Queen's death and subsequent state events
They can still provide extensive coverage, but not at the expense of public information on other events away from the Queen's death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_"H"_Watkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Watkins_(Lostprophets_singer)
I first noticed them as child, looking at photos from his wedding to Diana.
I think Andrew is similarly ensausaged.
Where do they come from?
Is it the Glucksberg inheritance?
Winston Churchill
Albert Einstein
Lamarr was also a very successful businesswoman.
Only one that doesn't is the Jamaican Daily Gleaner, which talks about an opinion piece on moving to a Republic now in an article 3 or 4 from the top.
If King Charles has a problem it will be in the Carribean first.
The rescued Uke women want to give the soldiers fritters
https://twitter.com/dovewoman1/status/1568688884804120576?s=21&t=uHcrV3JxEGBkWaffIBFyHA
i feel pity for anyone who sided with Putin/Russia in this appalling war. You really were overtly choosing evil
I think full mobilisation is off the table, if the 2.9 million who might be conscripted started getting call up papers, then that's the one thing that would get them and there family's on the streets.
Nuclear stick, might at first look possible but would they work if the button was pressed? would the men obey the order to press the button? does Putin really want the would to end and all his family to die?
Can he cling to power like Sadam Husain after Golf war 1? maybe but I think it will be harder this time not least with social media, in Russia telegram is big i understand.
I think if he is blamed for starting the war, he is most likely to be replaced by a moderate, if he is blamed for losing a war he will be replaced by a hard liner.
Its Hedley!
Mind you, BS also gave us the brilliant 'Teutonic Twat!'
Things are rarely so black and white, but this time they really were - Putin launched a war of territorial aggression on flimsy pretexts which frequently contradicted one another, proving the territory bit was the real reason. None of the other ones hold up for anyone trying to justify Putin's actions. At best they can try to explain it - NATO, russian speakers etc - but his 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gave the game away on anyone trying that.
https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AX07007B
Elvis
Picssso
I find that rather incredible. Firstly, it's not that long ago, and it all goes rather quickly, secondly how these individuals themselves (not just the institution of the monarchy) shaped history.
“Unfortunately there is one thing standing between me and that property – the rightful owners.”
I got them, the wrong way around.
It might be a shame.
It may account why he wanted someone else to move the inkwell. It would have been embarrassing to drop it.
https://twitter.com/threshedthought/status/1568701513375318016?s=21&t=3qeSSEjRZLtzfNa5ogyOVg
Jamaica?
No, it was a democratic vote.
"Yeh, that fecking stupid rule change. The £3."
"I know. What a twat."
From some reports the Russians seem to be collapsing faster than France in WWII.
https://twitter.com/threshedthought/status/1568701513375318016?s=21&t=AXymOQ9ps0pPKsdzHpPFTw
That said, it may not be accurate, and if it is its ether brave or stupid, or maybe both.
I don't like any country becoming a Republic. Jamaica has always been a bit different to other countries in the Carribean and a little bit more traditional and monarchy-like.
I don't want it to go and I'll feel upset if it does.
The only people getting worked up about it being a strategic defeat for the UK will be the oped writers for the New York Times.
Snoopy
Surprised the Russians weren't aware of it.
Some are talking about Putin being replaced by another nationalist strongman, but nationalist strongmen need military forces to sustain their rule. In Ukraine, Russia is not just losing her army, but her mercenary network, her national reserves, her police forces, her conscript pools. All are getting thrown into the meat grinder because Putin is psychologically unable to admit defeat. No wonder they are putting roadblocks up around the Kremlin.
I assume it’s a weird hereditary thing.
Momentous things are happening in Ukraine.
Of rather more import than the details of who waved at Balmoral.
It made clear his ambitions stretched to the whole of Ukraine, even if that was wildly overambitious, and that no concession from any party would persuade him, only military defeat could.
I hope I am right in thinking that he genuinely did not expect so much support from the West for Ukraine, not in the tangible ways it has come. Yes, the USA is still doing the heavy lifting, but would they have felt able to do as much without all the diplomatic weight and support of Europe as a whole (Hungary excepted again)? Germany has gotten some flack but really does seem to have rapidly shifted direction, again in a way Putin may not have anticipated.
We've always backed down with Putin, because he has powerful threats to employ, but he doesn't see, to have expected that this time everyone could no longer fool themselves that standing up to him, insofar as backing Ukraine to the hilt with support (even if they would not actively participate) was not necessary. No one (outside stop the war and their far right comrades) could pretend any longer that playing Putin's game would work any longer.
@OwenJones84
·
5h
It really does look as though the Russian army is being routed by Ukraine's forces. We could be about to find out how a nuclear power headed by an autocrat will respond to being defeated in a land invasion of its own choosing.
===
By falling out of a window?
Choosing to elect their own leaders is just self-rule, its not rejecting anything. Its the Commonwealth that is the bonds now and should be the legacy the monarchy leaves behind.
Now HMQ is gone every other realm could abolish the monarchy, it wouldn't be a rejection of anything, as long as the Commonwealth stays together we're still a family of nations even without a shared monarch.
Saturday gigs.
All the way from Memphis.
Great band.
As for blowbacks, well, that's a risk that has to be accepted. Putin's lackeys made nuclear threats simply for people offering support to Ukraine, so there's not much reason to step back from the current level of support in fear, since they've made clear the risk is there even if they do far less.
Spare a thought for the energy crisis though. Not often you expect a debt-funded government splurge of over 100bn to avert historically high energy prices relegated to third place in the news.
https://twitter.com/RuslanR17343536/status/1568684670505844736
I can’t post it for some reason.
If it wasn't for the fact that he's on the TV camera within 48 hours of his mother dying, because of her dying, I'd be a lot less sympathetic to that sort of behaviour. It was rude.