Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
There's two different issues here - the capital the Tories can make from this, and which I agree with you on, but I still can't see that Starmer has an easy response to.
The second is more of a legal point, which perhaps some of our more legal minds like Cyclefree might be able to help on. Criticising abstract concepts behind the monarchy may not be the same in legal terms as directly renouncing your oath to it, or the person of the current monarch.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
I am completely opposed to Lewis, and my main issue is the effect people like him have on the chance of a Labour government being elected when we need one.
But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)
I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
It’ll look shit in 10 years though. They always do.
Any PBers have one? I briefly considered one to cover up a surgical scar, but I think there is a chance they'll have to dig around in there again in the future.
Both sleeves and "Thief In Law" ring tats on my right knuckles.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
No, you can make an email address without having an earlier one. So your statement that the owners won’t be out of pocket only implies to posters whose identities can be readily identified from either their user name or email address. I suspect that is a very small minority of us.
What a ridiculous thread header when even under 25s back keeping the monarchy by an 11% margin despite the fact most of them voted for Corbyn. How many other issues at the moment would you get most Tories, Labour, LDs, Leavers and Remainers and voters of all ages and all classes agreeing as Yougov shows they agree on keeping the monarchy?
What a ridiculous thread header when even under 25s back keeping the monarchy by an 11% margin despite the fact most of them voted for Corbyn. How many other issues at the moment would you get most Tories, Labour, LDs, Leavers and Remainers and voters of all ages agreeing as Yougov shows they agree on keeping the monarchy?
To what extent is the tardiness of Germany’s supply of weapons to Ukraine related to manufacturing constraints, and limited existing stocks ? (They’ve certainly provided substantial financial aid, for example.)
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1571110300484792321 The German government has approved Ukraine's request for more RCH-155 howitzers. However, the manufacturer will be able to produce them for Ukraine no earlier than the first half of 2025, reports Welt am Sonntag citing @MelnykAndrij and documents received from the manufacturer…
It’s clearly not an insignificant problem in general. Poland, for example, just ordered several billion dollars worth of a S Korean F16 derivative light fighter (with inferior performance), because they aren’t prepared to wait years for deliveries of new F16s from the US, and the Korean jet (the FA-50) is available very quickly.
Germany's armed forces were/are in a shockingly poor state. When the German government was shopping around for things to cut in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and the Eurozone crisis, Merkel saw military spending and thought it was an easy place to make reductions.
From an NYTimes article at the start of the year:
There is a shortage of everything from protective vests to thermal underwear. Radio equipment is 30 years out of date. Only one in three warships is ready to deploy — so few that the navy worries it cannot meet all its international commitments.
Even in Rukla, the flagship German NATO mission which has relatively few complaints when it comes to resources, the general scarcity has been felt.
Some of the armored vehicles are five decades old. During international exercises in Lithuania, their equipment routinely made the German units “the weakest link in the chain,” soldiers reported to the parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces on their return from tours in Rukla.
Indeed. But while they’re perhaps an extreme example, very similar comments could be made for most of Europe up until this year’s invasion. At least some of the reluctance to supply Ukraine with the more modern and potent weapons is that our own militaries are quite nervous about the effect on their own capabilities.
Which is why Turkish and S Korean defence manufacturers are making out like bandits.
Indeed, I remember @Dura_Ace saying that our spare self propelled artillery is in such a poor state that it is undeployable.
Dear old @Dura_Ace told us that the NLAWS were useless rubbish and that the Ukrainians were doomed
Hmmm
We announced we were giving them to Ukraine back in April. They didn’t want them
That’s how useful they are.
You what? Here's a Ukrainian soldier in early March saying they destroyed Russian tanks "thanks to the gifts from Her Majesty the Queen". The UK sent large quantities before Russia invaded.
To what extent is the tardiness of Germany’s supply of weapons to Ukraine related to manufacturing constraints, and limited existing stocks ? (They’ve certainly provided substantial financial aid, for example.)
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1571110300484792321 The German government has approved Ukraine's request for more RCH-155 howitzers. However, the manufacturer will be able to produce them for Ukraine no earlier than the first half of 2025, reports Welt am Sonntag citing @MelnykAndrij and documents received from the manufacturer…
It’s clearly not an insignificant problem in general. Poland, for example, just ordered several billion dollars worth of a S Korean F16 derivative light fighter (with inferior performance), because they aren’t prepared to wait years for deliveries of new F16s from the US, and the Korean jet (the FA-50) is available very quickly.
Germany's armed forces were/are in a shockingly poor state. When the German government was shopping around for things to cut in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and the Eurozone crisis, Merkel saw military spending and thought it was an easy place to make reductions.
From an NYTimes article at the start of the year:
There is a shortage of everything from protective vests to thermal underwear. Radio equipment is 30 years out of date. Only one in three warships is ready to deploy — so few that the navy worries it cannot meet all its international commitments.
Even in Rukla, the flagship German NATO mission which has relatively few complaints when it comes to resources, the general scarcity has been felt.
Some of the armored vehicles are five decades old. During international exercises in Lithuania, their equipment routinely made the German units “the weakest link in the chain,” soldiers reported to the parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces on their return from tours in Rukla.
Indeed. But while they’re perhaps an extreme example, very similar comments could be made for most of Europe up until this year’s invasion. At least some of the reluctance to supply Ukraine with the more modern and potent weapons is that our own militaries are quite nervous about the effect on their own capabilities.
Which is why Turkish and S Korean defence manufacturers are making out like bandits.
Indeed, I remember @Dura_Ace saying that our spare self propelled artillery is in such a poor state that it is undeployable.
Dear old @Dura_Ace told us that the NLAWS were useless rubbish and that the Ukrainians were doomed
Hmmm
We announced we were giving them to Ukraine back in April. They didn’t want them
That’s how useful they are.
I thought that they were used to great effect against Russian tanks?
They didn’t want the U.K. SPGs - they are in a poor state and have shorter range than other systems. Due to not having been updated for years.
They love NLAW
Instead of the British SPGs, the Government bought and sent M109 from Belgium. The Belgian Army had sold their entire set to an arms dealer there. They were all nice and polished, ready for sale and they are a match for the M109s other countries have been donating.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
No, you can make an email address without having an earlier one. So your statement that the owners won’t be out of pocket only implies to posters whose identities can be readily identified from either their user name or email address. I suspect that is a very small minority of us.
Well, in this 4 way conversation OGH knows who I am, I know who cyclefree is and I have this crazy intuition about leon, so that leaves you.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
No, you can make an email address without having an earlier one. So your statement that the owners won’t be out of pocket only implies to posters whose identities can be readily identified from either their user name or email address. I suspect that is a very small minority of us.
Well, in this 4 way conversation OGH knows who I am, I know who cyclefree is and I have this crazy intuition about leon, so that leaves you.
I was referring to your claim that “The primary target will always be the actual poster.”. That doesn’t seem correct based on our discussion.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
I am completely opposed to Lewis, and my main issue is the effect people like him have on the chance of a Labour government being elected when we need one.
But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)
I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.
SKS is the big victim here.
I don’t usually disrespect posts as much as I’m about to disrespect yours, so I’m saying sorry up front, Algy.
But your post was gibberish. creative wriggleroom for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown?
What do you think the crown is? Someone who walks corgi’s, or the law of the land?
Gobby Clive has de oathed himself. Starmer has to act to try and limit the fun Tory’s are about have with this.
-dissolution of the monarchy -end of FPTP -re-entering the EU -unification of Ireland -federalisation
All in the lifetime of HYUFD.
Nope, the Monarchy will be here forever, long past your lifetime King George will be on the throne, we are not re entering the EU now as that requires the Euro, Ireland will never be fully united, Antrim would declare UDI first. Federation would only happen with an English Parliament.
Voters voted for AV in 2011, PR could make Farage Kingmaker in a hung parliament as the far right Sweden Democrats now are in Sweden
NigelB said: "Since the Presidential elections are the biggest political betting events, I don't think there are all that many PB regulars unaware of the political battles over Obama's expansion of Medicaid, etc."
Well, then, why don't you correct the mistaken comments I see so often here? (I didn't name individuals who were making those mistakes, because I think that -- usually -- hinders rational discussion.)
And here, I suspect, are three things you didn't know about "ObamaCare", as it is often called: 1. It included a tax on "Cadillac" plans, private plans that were too generous. 2. It resulted in the closing of rural hospitals. (If you want more details, look for an article by Anemona Hartocollis in the NYT some years ago. 3. After it had been in effect for some years, life expectancy in the United States fell, beginning in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Life_expectancy
Nor is it likely that you know that George W. Bush proposed a substantial expansion of Medicare benefits, Part D, which passed. (Incidentally, that has probably had positive effects outside the United States. By increasing the expenditure for drugs here, it probably incentivized American drug companies to spend more on research.)
I think you are really quite mad if you think that the decline in life expectancy seen in the US post 2014 is due to Obamacare. (You would also need to explain why Massachusetts did not see a similar trend shifted forward a decade, given they were first with an Obamacare type system.)
it’s the drugs. I have written about it
After Covid : “the second greatest contributor to the decline in life expectancy is accidental injury, driven primarily by drug overdoses, which killed over 100,000 U.S. residents last year.” (CDC Report, 2022)
US Life Expectancy is now 76. Which is mind boggling. It is now lower than Panama, Iran or Sri Lanka
Yes: Perdue Pharma (and others) have a lot to answer for.
It’s not OxyContin any more tho, it is the evil Fentanyl
I’ve seen a few documentaries on the tube of you about the impact of fentanyl. Looks horrendous the impact it’s having in some parts of the US
The ”side effects” of Fentanyl withdrawal, and, pretty shortly, Fentanty itself (in a regular user), closely mimic schizophrenia
it is a grotesquely nasty drug
There is a theory floating around GOP circles that it was invented, or improved from an original US recipe, by the Chinese, who knew it would destroy American society. And they knew they could pump it over the Mex/US border via the drug cartels. Bingo: US Life Expectancy drops to 76, lower than Panama
Bonkers? I don’t know any more. Not after Covid leaked from the lab
That life expectancy stat is surprising and who knows how it ended up on the streets but it is there and some people are making a lot of cash on peoples misery.
Mind you we e heard similar stories about Spice in the U.K. and Krokodil in Russia.
Fentanyl was patented in 1960, and in widespread medical use for a half century as an anaesthetic and pain relief agent.
Widespread illicit abuse is a more recent phenomenon, but a very serious one.
The theory is that the Chinese discovered that 1960 recipe, worked out a way of making it extremely cheaply, and realised they could use the Mexican drug lords to pump it, intravenously, into America. A hideously addictive drug which is almost impossible to kick and which sends you mad. Perfect
it sounds outrageous and the plot of a good but lurid thriller, but now? After everything China has actually done? After Ukraine? After Covid almost certainly leaked from a Chinese lab doing dodgy experiments, part funded by Fauci in America?
Why not?
I can believe it
The circularity of history, as we destroyed the Chinese Imperial society just that way in the 19th Century. We didn't need to smuggle it though, we sold it to them at gunpoint.
Put it on the demerit side of the British Empire scorecard.
The first tattoos I ever got were sXe Straight Edge symbols on the inside of my wrists. I have had so much surgery on my left wrist it now looks like CofE so I might get that covered up.
I didn’t join the Que though I did have a look at it.
I went shopping to make sure I have everything right for going to watch the funeral. I’ve got black tights and a knee length dress and black shoes and a hat.
Secretly, the whole country wishes they were in The Queue.
I immed and ammed but I’ve made a decision now to live with for rest of my life. I’m going to concentrate on paying respects on funeral day. I’ve got my outfit ready.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
No, you can make an email address without having an earlier one. So your statement that the owners won’t be out of pocket only implies to posters whose identities can be readily identified from either their user name or email address. I suspect that is a very small minority of us.
Well, in this 4 way conversation OGH knows who I am, I know who cyclefree is and I have this crazy intuition about leon, so that leaves you.
I was referring to your claim that “The primary target will always be the actual poster.”. That doesn’t seem correct based on our discussion.
If you can nail the poster, you can shake him down for £mmms. If you can't, you can bully the site operator about his identity. If that doesn't work you cannot as far as I know say to him But for your inadequate sign up processes I would have scored £mmms off RobD so you have to pay me £mmms instead. The owner is in the clear if he takes down the post and discloses what he knows about the poster's ID even if that is inadequate.
A hereditary monarchy is obviously not consistent with a vibrant democracy. The question is what do you replace it with?
Our democracy is pretty vibrant. Betwn Jan 1 2010 and Dec 31 2019 we had 5 democratically elected governments.
Someone on here was whining on last evening about how they would fight for the Monarchy.
Would I? If Britain were invaded by a hostile foreign power(s) and I had the means to resist, I would.
I would fight to defend democracy so I'd have been a Roundhead last time round. Given it's not a very likely scenario, the notion of a future Monarch seeking to impose authoritarian rule on Britain is the sort of thing which would have me opposing the Monarchy.
Indeed, like both Charles I and II.
The Marquess of Montrose is my model: stick to my own perhaps contradictory principles pissing off everyone and end up in bits on the Royal Mile.
Not quite: as Wiki says (the location being quite topical, of course):
'His head was removed and stood on the "prick on the highest stone" of the Old Tolbooth outside St Giles' Cathedral from 1650 until the beginning of 1661.[26]
Shortly after Montrose's death the Scottish Argyll Government switched sides to support Charles II's attempt to regain the English throne, providing he was willing to impose the Solemn League and Covenant in England for a trial period at least. After the Restoration Montrose was officially rehabilitated in the public memory.
On 7 January 1661 Montrose's mangled torso was disinterred from the gallows ground on the Burgh Muir and carried under a velvet canopy to the Tolbooth, where his head was reverently removed from the spike, before the procession continued on its way to Holyrood Abbey. The diarist John Nicoll wrote the following eyewitness account of the event,
[A guard of honour of four captains with their companies, all of them in] thair armes and displayit colouris, quha eftir a lang space marching up an doun the streitis, went out thaireftir to the Burrow mure quhair his corps wer bureyit, and quhair sundry nobles and gentrie his freindis and favorites, both hors and fute wer thair attending; and thair, in presence of sundry nobles, earls, lordis, barones and otheris convenit for the tyme, his graif [grave] was raisit, his body and bones taken out and wrappit up in curious clothes and put in a coffin, quhilk, under a canopy of rich velwet, wer careyit from the Burrow-mure to the Toun of Edinburgh; the nobles barones and gentrie on hors, the Toun of Edinburgh and many thousandis besyde, convoyit these corpis all along, the callouris [colours] fleying, drums towking [beating], trumpettis sounding, muskets cracking and cannones from the Castell roring; all of thame walking on till thai come to the Tolbuith of Edinburgh, frae the quhilke his heid wes very honorablie and with all dew respectis taken doun and put within the coffin under the cannopie with great acclamation and joy; all this tyme the trumpettis, the drumes, cannouns, gunes, the displayit cullouris geving honor to these deid corps. From thence all of thame, both hors and fute, convoyit these deid corps to the Abay Kirk of Halyrudhous quhair he is left inclosit in ane yll [aisle] till forder ordour be by his Majestie and Estaites of Parliament for the solempnitie of his Buriall.[27]
Montrose's limbs were brought from the towns to which they had been sent (Glasgow, Perth, Stirling and Aberdeen) and placed in his coffin, as he lay in state at Holyrood. A splendid funeral was held in the church of St. Giles on 11 May 1661.[28][29]'
I suspect the Stuarts preferred him admirably dead than mercurially alive. Interesting to consider how his life would have panned out if he'd escaped the rope.
Bonny fechter though. Charles (PB's chief posho and people trafficking expert, now departed) claimed Montrose as an ancestor along with all the others, and thought that this was an insult despite asserting some familiarity with Scotland.
Insult to whom? I had to stop and work it out. It's so odd because you can pick and choose, so to speak. Not that his enemy Argyll didn't get the chop himself.
Yep, quite the commander - notably his midwinter forced march over Corrieyairack to surprise the enemy at An Gearasdan.
https://twitter.com/katyn1940/status/1571032779202400258 Today is the 83rd anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Declared by the USSR as a "liberation mission", this undeclared war resulted in over a million Poles being deported to Siberia, the illegal annexation of 52% of Polish territory and eventually the Katyń massacre.
Sitting at the marble counter top of a brilliant tapas bar in Seville eating yet another superb lunch while guzzling cold Spanish white and arguing nonsense with PB is one of my new fave things ever, so thanks, guys. Sincerely
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
I am completely opposed to Lewis, and my main issue is the effect people like him have on the chance of a Labour government being elected when we need one.
But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)
I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.
SKS is the big victim here.
I don’t usually disrespect posts as much as I’m about to disrespect yours, so I’m saying sorry up front, Algy.
But your post was gibberish. creative wriggleroom for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown?
What do you think the crown is? Someone who walks corgi’s, or the law of the land?
Gobby Clive has de oathed himself. Starmer has to act to try and limit the fun Tory’s are about have with this.
Thanks. all good points.
Our sort of democracy is about space for those you disagree with most. I am absolutely against Lewis in this case in every way. But all have rights.
IMHO the real meaning of the oath, in this regard, in a world in which all my life there have been MPs who make the oath and are in fact opposed to the monarchy (remember Willie Hamilton) is something like this:
"I undertake only to try to change the law relating to the fundamental constitution of monarchy by lawful means, which is by peaceful democratic action and due parliamentary process".
That isn't what my oaths to the crown me to me, they mean much more, but that's the minimum I should expect in a constitutional democratic monarchy.
-dissolution of the monarchy -end of FPTP -re-entering the EU -unification of Ireland -federalisation
All in the lifetime of HYUFD.
Nope, the Monarchy will be here forever, long past your lifetime King George will be on the throne, we are not re entering the EU now as that requires the Euro, Ireland will never be fully united, Antrim would declare UDI first. Federation would only happen with an English Parliament.
Voters voted for AV in 2011, PR could make Farage Kingmaker in a hung parliament as the far right Sweden Democrats now are in Sweden
Antrim UDI and English Parliament Bingo!! Just such a shame we don't have Generation and Indyref to get the jackpot.
So it's for a diesel movie as it's almost sun over the yardarm time. I can't remember if we've had this one before but anyone who knows Edinburgh's southside - over by St Leonards and the Commie Pool - will like it. We had family friends whose garden backed onto the railway coalyard at that very time.
A hereditary monarchy is obviously not consistent with a vibrant democracy. The question is what do you replace it with?
Our democracy is pretty vibrant. Betwn Jan 1 2010 and Dec 31 2019 we had 5 democratically elected governments.
Someone on here was whining on last evening about how they would fight for the Monarchy.
Would I? If Britain were invaded by a hostile foreign power(s) and I had the means to resist, I would.
I would fight to defend democracy so I'd have been a Roundhead last time round. Given it's not a very likely scenario, the notion of a future Monarch seeking to impose authoritarian rule on Britain is the sort of thing which would have me opposing the Monarchy.
Indeed, like both Charles I and II.
The Marquess of Montrose is my model: stick to my own perhaps contradictory principles pissing off everyone and end up in bits on the Royal Mile.
Not quite: as Wiki says (the location being quite topical, of course):
'His head was removed and stood on the "prick on the highest stone" of the Old Tolbooth outside St Giles' Cathedral from 1650 until the beginning of 1661.[26]
Shortly after Montrose's death the Scottish Argyll Government switched sides to support Charles II's attempt to regain the English throne, providing he was willing to impose the Solemn League and Covenant in England for a trial period at least. After the Restoration Montrose was officially rehabilitated in the public memory.
On 7 January 1661 Montrose's mangled torso was disinterred from the gallows ground on the Burgh Muir and carried under a velvet canopy to the Tolbooth, where his head was reverently removed from the spike, before the procession continued on its way to Holyrood Abbey. The diarist John Nicoll wrote the following eyewitness account of the event,
[A guard of honour of four captains with their companies, all of them in] thair armes and displayit colouris, quha eftir a lang space marching up an doun the streitis, went out thaireftir to the Burrow mure quhair his corps wer bureyit, and quhair sundry nobles and gentrie his freindis and favorites, both hors and fute wer thair attending; and thair, in presence of sundry nobles, earls, lordis, barones and otheris convenit for the tyme, his graif [grave] was raisit, his body and bones taken out and wrappit up in curious clothes and put in a coffin, quhilk, under a canopy of rich velwet, wer careyit from the Burrow-mure to the Toun of Edinburgh; the nobles barones and gentrie on hors, the Toun of Edinburgh and many thousandis besyde, convoyit these corpis all along, the callouris [colours] fleying, drums towking [beating], trumpettis sounding, muskets cracking and cannones from the Castell roring; all of thame walking on till thai come to the Tolbuith of Edinburgh, frae the quhilke his heid wes very honorablie and with all dew respectis taken doun and put within the coffin under the cannopie with great acclamation and joy; all this tyme the trumpettis, the drumes, cannouns, gunes, the displayit cullouris geving honor to these deid corps. From thence all of thame, both hors and fute, convoyit these deid corps to the Abay Kirk of Halyrudhous quhair he is left inclosit in ane yll [aisle] till forder ordour be by his Majestie and Estaites of Parliament for the solempnitie of his Buriall.[27]
Montrose's limbs were brought from the towns to which they had been sent (Glasgow, Perth, Stirling and Aberdeen) and placed in his coffin, as he lay in state at Holyrood. A splendid funeral was held in the church of St. Giles on 11 May 1661.[28][29]'
I suspect the Stuarts preferred him admirably dead than mercurially alive. Interesting to consider how his life would have panned out if he'd escaped the rope.
Bonny fechter though. Charles (PB's chief posho and people trafficking expert, now departed) claimed Montrose as an ancestor along with all the others, and thought that this was an insult despite asserting some familiarity with Scotland.
Insult to whom? I had to stop and work it out. It's so odd because you can pick and choose, so to speak. Not that his enemy Argyll didn't get the chop himself.
Yep, quite the commander - notably his midwinter forced march over Corrieyairack to surprise the enemy at An Gearasdan.
A hereditary monarchy is obviously not consistent with a vibrant democracy. The question is what do you replace it with?
Our democracy is pretty vibrant. Betwn Jan 1 2010 and Dec 31 2019 we had 5 democratically elected governments.
Someone on here was whining on last evening about how they would fight for the Monarchy.
Would I? If Britain were invaded by a hostile foreign power(s) and I had the means to resist, I would.
I would fight to defend democracy so I'd have been a Roundhead last time round. Given it's not a very likely scenario, the notion of a future Monarch seeking to impose authoritarian rule on Britain is the sort of thing which would have me opposing the Monarchy.
Indeed, like both Charles I and II.
The Marquess of Montrose is my model: stick to my own perhaps contradictory principles pissing off everyone and end up in bits on the Royal Mile.
Not quite: as Wiki says (the location being quite topical, of course):
'His head was removed and stood on the "prick on the highest stone" of the Old Tolbooth outside St Giles' Cathedral from 1650 until the beginning of 1661.[26]
Shortly after Montrose's death the Scottish Argyll Government switched sides to support Charles II's attempt to regain the English throne, providing he was willing to impose the Solemn League and Covenant in England for a trial period at least. After the Restoration Montrose was officially rehabilitated in the public memory.
On 7 January 1661 Montrose's mangled torso was disinterred from the gallows ground on the Burgh Muir and carried under a velvet canopy to the Tolbooth, where his head was reverently removed from the spike, before the procession continued on its way to Holyrood Abbey. The diarist John Nicoll wrote the following eyewitness account of the event,
[A guard of honour of four captains with their companies, all of them in] thair armes and displayit colouris, quha eftir a lang space marching up an doun the streitis, went out thaireftir to the Burrow mure quhair his corps wer bureyit, and quhair sundry nobles and gentrie his freindis and favorites, both hors and fute wer thair attending; and thair, in presence of sundry nobles, earls, lordis, barones and otheris convenit for the tyme, his graif [grave] was raisit, his body and bones taken out and wrappit up in curious clothes and put in a coffin, quhilk, under a canopy of rich velwet, wer careyit from the Burrow-mure to the Toun of Edinburgh; the nobles barones and gentrie on hors, the Toun of Edinburgh and many thousandis besyde, convoyit these corpis all along, the callouris [colours] fleying, drums towking [beating], trumpettis sounding, muskets cracking and cannones from the Castell roring; all of thame walking on till thai come to the Tolbuith of Edinburgh, frae the quhilke his heid wes very honorablie and with all dew respectis taken doun and put within the coffin under the cannopie with great acclamation and joy; all this tyme the trumpettis, the drumes, cannouns, gunes, the displayit cullouris geving honor to these deid corps. From thence all of thame, both hors and fute, convoyit these deid corps to the Abay Kirk of Halyrudhous quhair he is left inclosit in ane yll [aisle] till forder ordour be by his Majestie and Estaites of Parliament for the solempnitie of his Buriall.[27]
Montrose's limbs were brought from the towns to which they had been sent (Glasgow, Perth, Stirling and Aberdeen) and placed in his coffin, as he lay in state at Holyrood. A splendid funeral was held in the church of St. Giles on 11 May 1661.[28][29]'
I suspect the Stuarts preferred him admirably dead than mercurially alive. Interesting to consider how his life would have panned out if he'd escaped the rope.
Bonny fechter though. Charles (PB's chief posho and people trafficking expert, now departed) claimed Montrose as an ancestor along with all the others, and thought that this was an insult despite asserting some familiarity with Scotland.
Insult to whom? I had to stop and work it out. It's so odd because you can pick and choose, so to speak. Not that his enemy Argyll didn't get the chop himself.
Yep, quite the commander - notably his midwinter forced march over Corrieyairack to surprise the enemy at An Gearasdan.
If you want to join The Queue to see Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II lying-in-state - before she's gone forever - then tonight is your last chance. The next few hours. Now.
Don't make a decision (or non-decision) that you'll regret for the rest of your life.
If you're not sure, *go*. The Queue is an incredible experience in itself, and people will be talking about it for decades.
You could make the argument that does democracy even work properly when a large group of people many who have been out of the workforce for 20 to 30 years consistently swing elections
Was democracy supposed to only represent the workforce? If not, then it is certainly frustrating how the elderly vote is so influential, but it is certainly not undemocratic. As to whether that works even if it is democratic, well, that's just a general argument about whether democracy works, which applies to matters other than old people getting more influence.
Well we have never had democracies with such large elderly populations. Now a wise and informed elderly population is one thing but in the absence of that people vote their self interest. And as you become increasingly disconnected from the working world that becomes a problem
It’s not the fault of elderly voters if they are more motivated to vote than younger people.
So can we have weekend voting to encourage more workers to vote? No? Quelle surprise.
Isn’t postal voting universally available these days?
Indeed. It was brought in to encourage and facilitate voting by the elderly......
But it’s universal. So anyone can get one if they are unable to vote during the normal voting hours. Again it points to motivation, not ease of access.
Why are the establishment more interested in providing access to vote that suits the elderly rather than the young? It is fairly obviously in their self interest.
Postal votes can be used by voters of any age.
Yes but they are used proportionately more by older voters. .
But that's voluntary choice at work - if younger, working people do not take up that option that is not the fault of the postal voting system, since they are perfectly able to use it. I have, once, due to being requested to do so around Covid restrictions.
You seem to be saying that because older people tend to use it more postal voting is unfair. When in fact it actively makes it less unfair by offering an option for those who simply cannot find the time on the day of the vote.
No, I want to encourage as many people to vote as possible, of all ages. So postal votes are great for lots of people especially those with mobility issues. Weekend voting would be great for workers, especially those at the lower end of the economic scale with low control over hours worked and low access to flexible transportation.
The problem with postal voting is that you have to send your vote off early, so miss the end of the campaign. On two occasions I can remember, I have made my mind up on the way to the polling station.
Postal voting at scale distorts elections in this way. The campaign is the totality of it, up to polling day.
I would introduce internet voting, with the ability to change your vote until the polls close. The next stage would be STV with the candidate with the lowest vote dropping out until only the last two were left, before the Returning Officer announced the winner. It would be like watching Strictly, except with John Curtice instead of Tess Daly.
Anyone who advocates internet voting is merely showing how poorly the understand the internet and its ability to be subverted. Internet voting would be suborned by foreign powers and domestic hackers faster than you can vomit at the thought of president johnson or blair if we ever do get the republican dream of an elected head of state
False logic. There should be no Tory voters by now and yet… Peoples views change with age and place in society. Unless you are Jeremy Corbyn.
Well a couple of points. Tories are less popular with the young than ever its the disproportionate support of the old even compared with 10 years ago that is keeping them in power Back in the 80s and 90s there were plenty of old labour voters..not so much now
So the Tories have pushed things as far as they can now. The more they appease their old core vote the more disgust the young feel with them and the sharper the backlash
I've heard it all before. Conservative voters will be outbred by the young and/or ethnic minorities, and it never happens.
It doesn't happen because they turn more Conservative themselves as they age and, as minorities cease to be minorities, their politics converge with the mean of the population at large.
Possibly but I suspect the main factor is that the native population become more conservative.
A thread regarding the DeSantis crap @Leon is getting so excited over.
https://twitter.com/NeverTrumpTexan/status/1570828946308206593 I volunteer as a translator with asylees coming through the Texas border and I wanted to make a thread on who these migrants are, what help is actually needed and why what DeSantis and Abbott are doing is so needlessly cruel.
Everyone is talking about it, but so few understand
It’ll look shit in 10 years though. They always do.
Any PBers have one? I briefly considered one to cover up a surgical scar, but I think there is a chance they'll have to dig around in there again in the future.
I have 2 and had them since my late twenties, they still look fine and yet to wish I hadn't had them done 35 years later
Any political institution in the world would kill every kitten in the catteries of Kilburn to get these figures of support
I thought the young weren’t meant to care about this old crone yet 63% of them report being at least a little upset
in the age range 25-49 53% support the monarchy and only 27% oppose - so that’s 2 to 1. And the figures get, of course, much higher as you go up the ages
Unless Charles actually stabs his own children with one of those leaky pens we are decades from the monarchy being remotely imperilled
The monarchy can never afford to be complacent. But it is often implied (or outright stated) that 'the end is near' based off what is at worst lukewarm feelings from the young, or ethnic minorities.
The monarchy can handle things getting lukewarm. It's people being strongly against that would be an issue.
That's why its if there is a clash between crown and Tory government that problems would come.
Indeed
And these figures must be seen in context. One of the Late Queen’s sons, Prince Andrew, has been exposed as (allegedly?) a horrible pedophile, a predatory monster who has to pay off his victims. He is such a scandal he has to be hidden away until it is unavoidable that he is seen, then he is hidden away again
He narrowly avoided a rape trial in New York
Meanwhile a beautiful black woman who married into the family is claiming they are all racist
It’s about as bad as it gets. It is hard to envisage a worse context for the Royal Family, within the realms of the Likely. I guess Prince William could join the Wagner group and be seen shooting Ukrainian ballet dancers? Apart from that any deeper scandal strikes me as highly improbable
And still the monarchy has rock solid support. Two to one or more. It isn’t going anywhere
Can you be exposed as an alleged pedophile?
If Andrew dropped his trousers, he would be exposed and an alleged paedophile.
Would that cover it?
Or rather, uncover it?
Has he been accused of paedophilia? As I understand it, the ladies in question have all been legal, under UK law.
The allegations extend to America, where they weren't.
AIUI *at the time of the incident* she was over the age of consent in New York (it has subsequently been lifted to 18 - she was 17).
However there was a mismatch with the laws on trafficking across state borders where 18 always applies.
So Andrew - allegedly - had sex with a 17 year old in New York. That was legal at the time, which is all he could reasonably have checked - the unknown is whether he knew she was trafficked.
He’s been an idiot and a bit of a perv. But it’s a grey area whether he knowingly broke the law (and it may be - I don’t know - that lack of knowledge is no defence). However he was told to settle because of the reputational damage that was being done to the family.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
Is that true? Why are newspapers the target of libel action if that is the case?
Because the stuff in them is written by people in the pay of the owner, on the whole.
Is that a distinction made in law? I thought it was just references to publishers, which could be interpreted as a site owner.
Obviously, whoever wrote the libellous post, blog, comment etc is primarily responsible. But others can be on the hook too. For example, a web host may be liable if it doesn’t remove such material within a reasonable time after being given notice. However, under UK law, operates of websites have a defence if they didn’t post the defamatory statement on the site – provided they react correctly to a notice of complaint from a complainant claiming that it can’t identify the person who posted the statement. For more, see removal of defamatory material from websites.
Thanks. So the current policy of not allowing libellous statements seems sensible. It sounds difficult to prove that you cannot identify who made the comment, so they’d end up on the hook anyway.
Well, no, because the easy and sensible response from the website owner is: You say you can't identify them? This validated email address may solve your problem for you. So, yes, avoiding defamation is desirable for all sorts of reasons, but You are going to bankrupt OGH is not one of them.
Ah, I had misinterpreted that. But is an email address is a proof of identity? You can make one without having to supply your real identity in a few minutes.
In the case of the one the site has for me, it's a pretty big clue. Sure, there's always ways round things. Though I think to get a new email address you usually have to provide an existing, valid one so there's a paperchain.
Nope you don't. Speaking as someone who creates email addresses as throwaways when I don't want to get emails from them. No real name. No real address. No real telephone number needed
Sitting at the marble counter top of a brilliant tapas bar in Seville eating yet another superb lunch while guzzling cold Spanish white and arguing nonsense with PB is one of my new fave things ever, so thanks, guys. Sincerely
What should I eat next?
My shorts.
The best dish on that list is “toasted brioche with stewed meat and escabeche mussel”
The first time I went to this tapas bar the dish had sold out within half an hour of the place opening - clearly a celebrated item - so this time I got there as it opened, at lunchtime, and ordered it first (along with a deliciously piquant anchovy and chili skewer)
JFC
A taste sensation. The sweet, slightly grill-burned brioche sat there like a micro-catafalque adorned with a cute little casket of this slow cooked unctuous blood dark pork cheek (I think) with a faint mizzle of balsamic and a Christmassy dusting of Maldon sea salt and then laid on top like an Imperial State Crown was this fat gold-yellow mussel which had been escabeched overnight in vinegar, paprika, herbs, fine white wine, which yielded first and opened its thighs of flavour like a maiden with Prince Andrew in my predatory mouth as I droolingly shoved the whole damn fucking tiny thing down my eager gullet in about three famished pedo-bites
Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.
-dissolution of the monarchy -end of FPTP -re-entering the EU -unification of Ireland -federalisation
All in the lifetime of HYUFD.
Nope, the Monarchy will be here forever, long past your lifetime King George will be on the throne, we are not re entering the EU now as that requires the Euro, Ireland will never be fully united, Antrim would declare UDI first. Federation would only happen with an English Parliament.
Voters voted for AV in 2011, PR could make Farage Kingmaker in a hung parliament as the far right Sweden Democrats now are in Sweden
I think the EU ship has sailed for England. I suspect over time the monarchy becomes less relevant but not for a while yet.
A united Ireland, an independent Scotland (and then later, perhaps a while later, maybe Wales) and a change in the electoral system are not beyond the realms of probability in the next twenty years. I don't suppose I'll care too much by then either way.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
-dissolution of the monarchy -end of FPTP -re-entering the EU -unification of Ireland -federalisation
All in the lifetime of HYUFD.
Nope, the Monarchy will be here forever, long past your lifetime King George will be on the throne, we are not re entering the EU now as that requires the Euro, Ireland will never be fully united, Antrim would declare UDI first. Federation would only happen with an English Parliament.
Voters voted for AV in 2011, PR could make Farage Kingmaker in a hung parliament as the far right Sweden Democrats now are in Sweden
I think the EU ship has sailed for England. I suspect over time the monarchy becomes less relevant but not for a while yet.
A united Ireland, an independent Scotland (and then later, perhaps a while later, maybe Wales) and a change in the electoral system are not beyond the realms of probability in the next twenty years. I don't suppose I'll care too much by then either way.
I think you are probably right on all counts there - although the relevance of the monarchy is, I think, the most unpredictable as it depends so much on the behaviour and manner of the individual monarchs going forward.
Just back from an enjoyable afternoon on the Common, watching my town Marlborough's rugby team thump Newbury by over forty points. It was a pretty impressive score given they beat us home and away last season and finished above us in the league.
Seven of our starting XV today are Pacific Islanders and the four of them in the scrum are built like Vunipolas. We really don't look like a small Wiltshire town team. The standard of rugby is pretty damn good too.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
You could reasonably call them a sleaze if you like.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
You can’t “unswear” yourself and fingers crossed doesn’t count.
Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.
I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).
Just back from an enjoyable afternoon on the Common, watching my town Marlborough's rugby team thump Newbury by over forty points. It was a pretty impressive score given they beat us home and away last season and finished above us in the league.
Seven of our starting XV today are Pacific Islanders and the four of them in the scrum are built like Vunipolas. We really don't look like a small Wiltshire town team. The standard of rugby is pretty damn good too.
Marlborough is not far from Aldbourne. Visited it a few times. They filmed a Dr Who story there in 1970.
Unpopular as this might be to say, there are statements made (on here let alone elsewhere) about Prince Andrew which are completely untethered to any of the known facts about his friendship with Epstein, the allegations made by Virginia Roberts and the investigations by the US authorities.
Being critical about his judgment and general behaviour is one thing but stating that he is a paedophile is defamatory. And such statements are not justified just because he is unlikely to sue OGH.
It’s accepted that he had sex with Giuffre when she was under 18?
In many - most? - US states I believe that counts as underage and therefore technically “pedophile” - tho of course the medical definition of this is much more restrictive and refers to attraction to pre pubescent children
So by legal standards in parts of the USA Andrew is the P word. But I am happy to be schooled by lawyers if I am wrong
He is a disgustingly corrupt arse who has humiliated his country. Even if the p word is not technically a fit, I for one am intensely relaxed about its continued use.
Here is your weekly reminder: He will sue OGH is a theory beloved of those uninformed as to the applicable English law. The primary target will always be the actual poster. You might get into a pissing match with rcs as to whether he is going to disclose the ID of posters, but why wouldn't he? And there are posters who are relatively easily IDed from their own posts anyway.
200k views on this video so far and Youtube seem quite intensely relaxed about it staying up...
Of course the age of consent varies from country to country...some countries it is 14....US is weird as there is a lot of sexual freedom but relatively high age of consent
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
I agree with all that, I just think the word paedophilia has much more serious connotations.
Sitting at the marble counter top of a brilliant tapas bar in Seville eating yet another superb lunch while guzzling cold Spanish white and arguing nonsense with PB is one of my new fave things ever, so thanks, guys. Sincerely
What should I eat next?
My shorts.
The best dish on that list is “toasted brioche with stewed meat and escabeche mussel”
The first time I went to this tapas bar the dish had sold out within half an hour of the place opening - clearly a celebrated item - so this time I got there as it opened, at lunchtime, and ordered it first (along with a deliciously piquant anchovy and chili skewer)
JFC
A taste sensation. The sweet, slightly grill-burned brioche sat there like a micro-catafalque adorned with a cute little casket of this slow cooked unctuous blood dark pork cheek (I think) with a faint mizzle of balsamic and a Christmassy dusting of Maldon sea salt and then laid on top like an Imperial State Crown was this fat gold-yellow mussel which had been escabeched overnight in vinegar, paprika, herbs, fine white wine, which yielded first and opened its thighs of flavour like a maiden with Prince Andrew in my predatory mouth as I droolingly shoved the whole damn fucking tiny thing down my eager gullet in about three famished pedo-bites
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
You could reasonably call them a sleaze if you like.
The word I would use is "inappropriate". It beggars belief that either Andrew didn't think this, or (more likely) thought that he'd get away with it.
At 21 or so, the equation changes to "sleazy". The old man is clearly taking advantage, but the young woman is worldly enough to understand what is taking place. It is harder to argue the same at 17.
A thread regarding the DeSantis crap @Leon is getting so excited over.
https://twitter.com/NeverTrumpTexan/status/1570828946308206593 I volunteer as a translator with asylees coming through the Texas border and I wanted to make a thread on who these migrants are, what help is actually needed and why what DeSantis and Abbott are doing is so needlessly cruel.
Everyone is talking about it, but so few understand
Further to the discussion about what Britain is really like, as evidenced by monarchist culture here, can people see whether they can find some foreign equivalents or near-equivalents for the following photos.
If nobody can find any, then obviously they say something highly specific about Britain.
Don't worry about admitting this - it doesn't mean your mind has been taken over by whoever is currently playing the role of "wicked foreign leader".
And if not for any of these, then how about an equivalent for the "Woolworth's test", so beloved of British medics? (Eh @Foxy?) Or for burning £20 notes in front of homeless people for a laugh?
Here's Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy, enjoying herself with her friends. Note the pretended pregnancy. Something funny or contemptible about proles reproducing?
I looked for the photo of Prince William acting similarly. It was printed in the Sun, in an article called "Future Bling of England". The text is here. The photo took a while to find, because the Sun removed the article from here. Fortunately they didn't wipe the article from archive.org:
There's a photo with Prince Charles (when he was called that) and Prince William, with the younger man making a gangster handsign.
There's another photo with Eton pupils posing at a roadsign dressed as proles. The roadsign was near the school, and the banner they were holding said something about a "Comp", from what I recall. It may have mentioned Slough.
I couldn't find either of those photos, but I've seen them.
Parallels from other countries please.
There's far more hatred pointing downwards in Britain than there is pointing upwards.
Your thesis is that only in Britain one group of society makes fun of another? OK.
Find the nearest parallel and post it.
The American website 'People of Walmart' is a similar look at poor people for entertainment. I find that much worse because the people there are mostly just doing their shopping.
Chavs are an interesting phenomenon. I was walking down the wring road into campus to the gym when at Uni and got set upon by examples of the breed (seemed like 10, was probably 4). Got into campus a bloody mess. Anti-social behaviour was and is real, and I blame no-one for parodying it.
Just back from an enjoyable afternoon on the Common, watching my town Marlborough's rugby team thump Newbury by over forty points. It was a pretty impressive score given they beat us home and away last season and finished above us in the league.
Seven of our starting XV today are Pacific Islanders and the four of them in the scrum are built like Vunipolas. We really don't look like a small Wiltshire town team. The standard of rugby is pretty damn good too.
Marlborough is not far from Aldbourne. Visited it a few times. They filmed a Dr Who story there in 1970.
I lived in Baydon for a little while. It's the nearest village to Aldbourne, about quarter of a mile away. I didn't know they'd filmed a Dr Who there, but did know that the US 101st Airborne Division (The Screaming Eagles) were based there before Normandy
A thread regarding the DeSantis crap @Leon is getting so excited over.
https://twitter.com/NeverTrumpTexan/status/1570828946308206593 I volunteer as a translator with asylees coming through the Texas border and I wanted to make a thread on who these migrants are, what help is actually needed and why what DeSantis and Abbott are doing is so needlessly cruel.
Everyone is talking about it, but so few understand
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
Criticising abstract concepts behind the monarchy may not be the same in legal terms as directly renouncing your oath to it, or the person of the current monarch.
It surely is not, since plenty of MPs are open republicans and have been permitted to be for a long time. They get around the oath business every parliament.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
I agree with all that, I just think the word paedophilia has much more serious connotations.
Agree with you there. It's a long way in seriousness from, say, interfering with 8 year olds.
Andrew isn't a paedo by any literal definition, he just had highly inappropriate relations with a young and vulnerable 17 year old when he was a 41 year old Prince of the Realm.
However when it's put that way, you can understand why "sweaty nonce" is in common parlance, even if it's not technically accurate.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Is that gobby disgrace Clive Lewis still in Labour today? Then the Labour Party leadership is weak weak weak. It’s not illegal or wrong in our free and liberal democracy to be a Republican if you want to - but you cannot be an MP and use mourning of the queen to say monarchy as symbol of duty or sacrifice ‘a lie’ - it’s just gobby grandstanding - Labour leadership are weak if he retains party whip and party membership by end of today.
I wouldn't agree with that. It's important to bear in mind always that the professed function and role of our constitutional monarchy is to protect democracy.
Theres a distinction here between free speech, go for it Clive, and following the whip of the party that funds you and your reelection efforts, be careful Clive.
Clive has already blown it. He’s got free speech, but he used it to say his parliamentary oath is a sham. You can hold views about transitioning the country to a republic - but you can’t rip up your parliamentary oath at this stage and remain a lawmaker and MP, can you.
Hmm. He hasn't renounced his oath directly, but a slightly more abstract criticism, I would say. It is a bit of a grey area, but I would still err on the side of his freedom to say it, not least for the potentially stifling effect and climate on all sorts of other types of criticism of the monarchy from parliament, again on whose freedom our constitutional set-up depends.
Oh please.
Clive Lewis has given us his Republican oath to Parliament. Does he believe this one, “The notion of the royal family as symbols of duty or sacrifice to the nation is “a lie” and is at the centre of a deeply unequal UK, a royal succession is as much about coercion as consent. monarchists have forcefully claimed that the royal family makes duty and sacrifice on our behalf, but we should not pretend that the reality is anything other than a lie. The role of Monarchy is merely as a national distraction, a spectacle exalted for exemplifying virtues that should be typical in public life and public behaviour. Casting such behaviour as exceptional allows the likes of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and the economic elites they represent to break and exploit the rules for their own benefit and that of their very narrow class interest – of which the monarchy is an integral part.”
or the real one.
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
He can’t believe both can he? He is effectively no longer under parliamentary oath. He has effectively un sworn in himself.
Starmer has to act today.
I am completely opposed to Lewis, and my main issue is the effect people like him have on the chance of a Labour government being elected when we need one.
But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)
I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.
SKS is the big victim here.
I don’t usually disrespect posts as much as I’m about to disrespect yours, so I’m saying sorry up front, Algy.
But your post was gibberish. creative wriggleroom for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown?
What do you think the crown is? Someone who walks corgi’s, or the law of the land?
Gobby Clive has de oathed himself. Starmer has to act to try and limit the fun Tory’s are about have with this.
How much fun will the party led by former republican Liz Truss have? I'm guessing Number 10 will let sleeping dogs lie.
Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.
I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).
Well, even though plenty of places are now legalising it after studies (and so the 'we need to wait for more medical info' crowd are wrong), many would still see it as unacceptable behaviour
I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
You could reasonably call them a sleaze if you like.
The word I would use is "inappropriate". It beggars belief that either Andrew didn't think this, or (more likely) thought that he'd get away with it.
At 21 or so, the equation changes to "sleazy". The old man is clearly taking advantage, but the young woman is worldly enough to understand what is taking place. It is harder to argue the same at 17.
He would have got away with it fine if he wasn't so fucking thick he posed for that photograph. Even an unposed photograph wouldn't have been a killer, but that so clearly says Look at us and guess what we've been up to. Moron.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
You could reasonably call them a sleaze if you like.
The word I would use is "inappropriate". It beggars belief that either Andrew didn't think this, or (more likely) thought that he'd get away with it.
At 21 or so, the equation changes to "sleazy". The old man is clearly taking advantage, but the young woman is worldly enough to understand what is taking place. It is harder to argue the same at 17.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
My sister when 15 was regularly chatted up by men 25 to 35
What’s your point?
Point is at the time it went on....for example 18 year old girls at her school sometimes had boyfriends in 20s....and of course didnt King Chatles first meet Diana when she was 16
Just back from an enjoyable afternoon on the Common, watching my town Marlborough's rugby team thump Newbury by over forty points. It was a pretty impressive score given they beat us home and away last season and finished above us in the league.
Seven of our starting XV today are Pacific Islanders and the four of them in the scrum are built like Vunipolas. We really don't look like a small Wiltshire town team. The standard of rugby is pretty damn good too.
Marlborough is not far from Aldbourne. Visited it a few times. They filmed a Dr Who story there in 1970.
I lived in Baydon for a little while. It's the nearest village to Aldbourne, about quarter of a mile away. I didn't know they'd filmed a Dr Who there, but did know that the US 101st Airborne Division (The Screaming Eagles) were based there before Normandy
They filmed The Daemons there. A classic broadcast in 1971. One of Jon Pertwee’s finest.
Loads of dr who fans, including myself and my chums, have made pilgrimages there.
@SpeakerPelosi Today, I am leading a Congressional delegation to Armenia to highlight the strong commitment of the United States to security, economic prosperity, and democratic governance in Armenia and the Caucasus region.
This delegation follows the 2019 passage of House Resolution 296, introduced by @RepAdamSchiff, which recognizes the murder of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide, and following @POTUS becoming the first president to formally acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.
It is the moral duty of all to never forget: an obligation that has taken on heightened urgency as atrocities are perpetrated around the globe, including by Russia against Ukraine.
Our Congressional delegation’s visit to Armenia is a powerful symbol of the United States’ firm commitment to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Armenia, and a stable and secure Caucasus region.
Given that the Russian backed Armenians got royally humped by the Turkish backed Azerbaijanis a year or so ago, the US backing Armenia (backed by Russia) against Azerbaijan (backed by NATO ally Turkey) could get remarkably messy very quickly. At least on the diplomatic front.
It isn't the only sign that Uncle Sam may be 'for turning'. We also had the US order to the Germans to delay the delivery of certain armaments to Ukraine. The statements from the US have also seemed softer than those of the UK - for quite some time. I don't know what it means, but I can only surmise that America planned a long war of attrition, but Ukraine's gains have put paid to that idea. Things are happening too fast, and the Putin alternatives aren't looking pretty. If this is so, it'll be interesting to see the sour pusses in UK politics as 'send in the SAS' becomes 'the reality is we need to work with Putin'. PB won't be short of red faces either.
Absurd to say that someone who (though it has not been proven) slept with a seventeen year old, is a “paedophile”.
At the time of the alleged incident, she was 17 and he was 41. It may not be paedophilia, but it's hardly appropriate, especially given the power dynamic between the two.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
You could reasonably call them a sleaze if you like.
The word I would use is "inappropriate". It beggars belief that either Andrew didn't think this, or (more likely) thought that he'd get away with it.
At 21 or so, the equation changes to "sleazy". The old man is clearly taking advantage, but the young woman is worldly enough to understand what is taking place. It is harder to argue the same at 17.
If you want to join The Queue to see Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II lying-in-state - before she's gone forever - then tonight is your last chance. The next few hours. Now.
Don't make a decision (or non-decision) that you'll regret for the rest of your life.
If you're not sure, *go*. The Queue is an incredible experience in itself, and people will be talking about it for decades.
Go.
Not for me but I know what you mean, as a veteran of Charles & Diana's wedding and the Olympics.
Re; Ishmael's point about THC, this paper seems to suggest that the levels of the more dangerous THC elements have gone down 4% in Canada since legalisation. Things don't seem to be going so well on that front in the apparently less clearly regulated US, but then Britain's experience is more likely to be like the Canadian one, from a governmental point of view, if it goes down this particular road.
I'm often baffled why the government doesn't legalise cannabis. There must be an eye-watering amount of tax sitting there for the taking (not to mention savings on police/court time).
Well, even though plenty of places are now legalising it after studies (and so the 'we need to wait for more medical info' crowd are wrong), many would still see it as unacceptable behaviour
I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.
Oooh, "after studies," by third parties. Must be fine, then. No need for further research.
The link between high strength cannabis and psychosis is about as well established as tobacco smoking - lung cancer. What we should be doing is learning from other peoples' mistakes.
Comments
The second is more of a legal point, which perhaps some of our more legal minds like Cyclefree might be able to help on. Criticising abstract concepts behind the monarchy may not be the same in legal terms as directly renouncing your oath to it, or the person of the current monarch.
But in a constitutional democratic monarchy there has to be wriggle room. It is fact that parliamentary legislation determines the succession to the crown, also a fact that parliament could legislate the crown away. (Also a fact that it won't, so let's not panic)
I therefore accept that you have to allow the creative space for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown as constituted. It's the price of our excellent, much loved, ambiguous, utterly unreasonable constitutional settlement.
SKS is the big victim here.
Off to London now
Leon brought up the NLAW as a way of twitting Dura Ace, in his usual inaccurate manner.
It helps to read the whole discussion before jumping in.
(FWIW, I was pointing out the utility of the NLAWs before Putin actually kicked off the assault on Kyiv.)
They love NLAW
Instead of the British SPGs, the Government bought and sent M109 from Belgium. The Belgian Army had sold their entire set to an arms dealer there. They were all nice and polished, ready for sale and they are a match for the M109s other countries have been donating.
But your post was gibberish. creative wriggleroom for MPs to be both loyal in oath and to be against the crown?
What do you think the crown is? Someone who walks corgi’s, or the law of the land?
Gobby Clive has de oathed himself. Starmer has to act to try and limit the fun Tory’s are about have with this.
Voters voted for AV in 2011, PR could make Farage Kingmaker in a hung parliament as the far right Sweden Democrats now are in Sweden
seems pretty relevant to the future of the monarchy to me.
Yep, quite the commander - notably his midwinter forced march over Corrieyairack to surprise the enemy at An Gearasdan.
https://bagpipe.news/2019/04/24/in-montroses-footsteps-with-the-soldiers-and-the-phantom-piper/
https://twitter.com/katyn1940/status/1571032779202400258
Today is the 83rd anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Declared by the USSR as a "liberation mission", this undeclared war resulted in over a million Poles being deported to Siberia, the illegal annexation of 52% of Polish territory and eventually the Katyń massacre.
Our sort of democracy is about space for those you disagree with most. I am absolutely against Lewis in this case in every way. But all have rights.
IMHO the real meaning of the oath, in this regard, in a world in which all my life there have been MPs who make the oath and are in fact opposed to the monarchy (remember Willie Hamilton) is something like this:
"I undertake only to try to change the law relating to the fundamental constitution of monarchy by lawful means, which is by peaceful democratic action and due parliamentary process".
That isn't what my oaths to the crown me to me, they mean much more, but that's the minimum I should expect in a constitutional democratic monarchy.
God save the King.
So it's for a diesel movie as it's almost sun over the yardarm time. I can't remember if we've had this one before but anyone who knows Edinburgh's southside - over by St Leonards and the Commie Pool - will like it. We had family friends whose garden backed onto the railway coalyard at that very time.
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/99806-the-innocent-railway-last-train/
Don't make a decision (or non-decision) that you'll regret for the rest of your life.
If you're not sure, *go*. The Queue is an
incredible experience in itself, and people will be talking about it for decades.
Go.
https://twitter.com/NeverTrumpTexan/status/1570828946308206593
I volunteer as a translator with asylees coming through the Texas border and I wanted to make a thread on who these migrants are, what help is actually needed and why what DeSantis and Abbott are doing is so needlessly cruel.
Everyone is talking about it, but so few understand
Note DeSantis is also violating his own state law in using fund allocated in this manner.
https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1571121258447933441
When she bent over, WOW!
https://www.alamy.com/england-london-wapping-tobacco-dock-london-tattoo-convention-tattooed-male-showing-characters-from-the-english-comedy-movie-carry-on-camping-image225686285.html?imageid=CC9F1590-79F3-49DF-A9C3-F8B7DD6BB91B&p=146925&pn=1&searchId=d7d1a94aca86920bd9a65689877ebea6&searchtype=0
However there was a mismatch with the laws on trafficking across state borders where 18 always applies.
So Andrew - allegedly - had sex with a 17 year old in New York. That was legal at the time, which is all he could reasonably have checked - the unknown is whether he knew she was trafficked.
He’s been an idiot and a bit of a perv. But it’s a grey area whether he knowingly broke the law (and it may be - I don’t know - that lack of knowledge is no defence). However he was told to settle because of the reputational damage that was being done to the family.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie viewed the Queen lying in state in Westminster Hall.
Latest here: https://trib.al/E4JbreQ https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1571169428246593538/video/1
The first time I went to this tapas bar the dish had sold out within half an hour of the place opening - clearly a celebrated item - so this time I got there as it opened, at lunchtime, and ordered it first (along with a deliciously piquant anchovy and chili skewer)
JFC
A taste sensation. The sweet, slightly grill-burned brioche sat there like a micro-catafalque adorned with a cute little casket of this slow cooked unctuous blood dark pork cheek (I think) with a faint mizzle of balsamic and a Christmassy dusting of Maldon sea salt and then laid on top like an Imperial State Crown was this fat gold-yellow mussel which had been escabeched overnight in vinegar, paprika, herbs, fine white wine, which yielded first and opened its thighs of flavour like a maiden with Prince Andrew in my predatory mouth as I droolingly shoved the whole damn fucking tiny thing down my eager gullet in about three famished pedo-bites
YES
£2.60
http://cannabisproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Mahamad-et-al.-2020-Availability-retail-price-and-potency-of-legal-and-illegal-cannabisin-Canada-after-recreational-cannabis-legalisation.pdf
Jack and Zoe, two strangers who met in the queue to see the Queen lying in state, tell @MinnieStephC4 they're now planning to watch the Queen's funeral together on Monday. https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1571169879713013761/video/1
Pure trash.
A united Ireland, an independent Scotland (and then later, perhaps a while later, maybe Wales) and a change in the electoral system are not beyond the realms of probability in the next twenty years. I don't suppose I'll care too much by then either way.
What would we say about a 41 year old man hanging out at a school leavers disco, or a middle aged boss having a one night stand with a work experience a level student?
Seven of our starting XV today are Pacific Islanders and the four of them in the scrum are built like Vunipolas. We really don't look like a small Wiltshire town team. The standard of rugby is pretty damn good too.
Only the late Queen, Princess Anne, William and Kate really cut the mustard,
The others are either quite notably thick, feckless and useless.
But it proves him to be a liar and hypocritic.
What do the numbers mean by the dishes
At 21 or so, the equation changes to "sleazy". The old man is clearly taking advantage, but the young woman is worldly enough to understand what is taking place. It is harder to argue the same at 17.
If they were Florida's own migrants, it might make some sense. But they are not. They are Texas migrants.
Chavs are an interesting phenomenon. I was walking down the wring road into campus to the gym when at Uni and got set upon by examples of the breed (seemed like 10, was probably 4). Got into campus a bloody mess. Anti-social behaviour was and is real, and I blame no-one for parodying it.
First proper Autumn chill in the air.
Black pudding for lunch.
A leisurely 10 miles through this green and pleasant land to the pub, and back.
Feels like a day for some roasted dead animals for dinner.
Maybe a glass of port, perhaps.
Andrew isn't a paedo by any literal definition, he just had highly inappropriate relations with a young and vulnerable 17 year old when he was a 41 year old Prince of the Realm.
However when it's put that way, you can understand why "sweaty nonce" is in common parlance, even if it's not technically accurate.
I doubt the police use up much time though. I pass people openly smoking weed in the street and they cannot be hard to track down.
Loads of dr who fans, including myself and my chums, have made pilgrimages there.
Read this
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-weed-became-new-oxycontin-marijuana-psychosis-addiction
The link between high strength cannabis and psychosis is about as well established as tobacco smoking - lung cancer. What we should be doing is learning from other peoples' mistakes.