Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
Yes, it is Charles III or bust for republicans. He is less popular than his mother was and his son and Camilla, Queen Consort is far less popular then the Duke of Edinburgh or Princess of Wales are.
So it is hardly surprising republicans are pushing the Andrew affair so hard to attack the King, as they know William is much tougher on Andrew than his father and was the one who pushed for his titles to go as well as being more popular.
Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
You think KCIII will abdicate? Or you think there should be compulsory retirement for Monarchs at age 90-ish?
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
Yes, it is Charles III or bust for republicans. He is less popular than his mother was and his son and Camilla, Queen Consort is far less popular then the Duke of Edinburgh or Princess of Wales are.
So it is hardly surprising republicans are pushing the Andrew affair so hard to attack the King, as they know William is much tougher on Andrew than his father and was the one who pushed for his titles to go as well as being more popular.
Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
You think KCIII will abdicate? Or you think there should be compulsory retirement for Monarchs at age 90-ish?
More the latter
Would have robbed us of years of the reign of QEII
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.
But we're not.
And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.
So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Better have a word with farmers and family business owners or indeed as you allude to the likes of Geoge W Bush, Joe Kennedy III, Ben Gummer, Hilary Benn or Scott Eastwood or Roman Kemp or Liza Minelli all who got their posts or who were helped along the way by who their parents were
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
When I was young I opposed the monarchy on the grounds that it sanctified the principle of hereditary privilege and I'd argue that case quite strongly in a loud voice with some jabbing of fingers. These days I've become a bit more susceptible to the sort of 'would the alternative be an improvement in practice?' prevarication befitting of a man in his mid-sixties. Still, if there were a Keep/Scrap referendum I'd probably vote S. It's essentially a crazy way to select a head of state.
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.
However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.
Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize some terrible behaviour.
The obsession isn't JUST he did this one thing, it is the girl at the time was being trafficked, that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it. And we keep finding out more and more.
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
Just consider the wider implications of that logic. Dystopian.
(I concede that by the letter of the law it is, and that's mad)
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
They should try that, it would be a cute legal precedent. It would establish whether the law restricts freedom of speech or not
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.
But we're not.
And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.
So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Greg Penner is the chairman of Walmart, I believe. He's only that because he's Sam Walton's son-in-law.
Don Jr and the even more stupid one are only where they are (recipients of boundless riches) because they’re u-know-who’s sons.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.
But we're not.
And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.
So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Better have a word with farmers and family business owners or indeed as you allude to the likes of Geoge W Bush, Joe Kennedy III, Ben Gummer, Hilary Benn or Scott Eastwood or Roman Kemp or Liza Minelli all who got their posts or who were helped along the way by who their parents were
Because it's not required under law. Because it doesn't let these families get out of obeying the laws the rest of us do.
You may recall your meltdown on PB at the very thought that the Royal estates in Scotland might have to follow the same housing and environmental legislation as the rest of us. Just because of whom the [edit] last PoW had for mummy.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
Making bombs isn’t terrorism - just because a stupid government is trying to stretch terrorism to cover stuff they don’t like, doesn’t make it so.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
Making bombs isn’t terrorism - just because a stupid government is trying to stretch terrorism to cover stuff they don’t like, doesn’t make it so.
Terrorism is about terrorising people.
I would agree with that (though making bombs must be a strong indication you intend to terrorise people).
The point I'm making is that entirely inconsistent application of these laws, as silly as they are. It's infuriating.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
Making bombs isn’t terrorism - just because a stupid government is trying to stretch terrorism to cover stuff they don’t like, doesn’t make it so.
Terrorism is about terrorising people.
This is the definition, Terrorism Act 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism?wprov=sfla1 The bit about supporting banned organisations is presumably in other legislation. From the definition, burning down asylum hostels ought to be charged as terrorism
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2), (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person, (b) involves serious damage to property, (c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
Making bombs isn’t terrorism - just because a stupid government is trying to stretch terrorism to cover stuff they don’t like, doesn’t make it so.
Terrorism is about terrorising people.
If you managed to work out the legal and insurance issues you could make a fortune running blow-a-car-up-in-an-old-quarry stag-do events.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
- Item 1 could be classed as terrorism, but isn’t by the government - Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism” - Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime. - Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
Blowing up ULEZ cameras, making bombs, and burning down asylum hotels are all very clearly acts of terrorism under the Terrorism Act.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
Making bombs isn’t terrorism - just because a stupid government is trying to stretch terrorism to cover stuff they don’t like, doesn’t make it so.
Terrorism is about terrorising people.
I would agree with that (though making bombs must be a strong indication you intend to terrorise people).
The point I'm making is that entirely inconsistent application of these laws, as silly as they are. It's infuriating.
If you are going to get upset by stupid, inconsistent application of laws, then you will spend the next few years busting blood vessels. We are governed by the C- crowd.
As to making bombs, there’s still a surprising number of people who just like making a bang out in the woods. Which is why the police justified their prosecution by the racist and threatening communications.
Hell, my brother *accidently* made gun-cotton when we were teenagers.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
Just consider the wider implications of that logic. Dystopian.
(I concede that by the letter of the law it is, and that's mad)
Someone should hold a sign up saying "I would support Palestine Action if it wasn't illegal"
If we were starting a country from scratch, would we choose to have a monarchy? Of course not.
But we're not.
And there isn't a really good reason that I can see to actually get rid of the monarchy. Nor is there any settled view on what we should replace it with.
So, I'm voting to keep it.
I fundamentally believe that someone shouldn't be born into a position simply by having the right parents. Why is King Charles king? Because of his mother. In no other area of life do we expect this to be the case (although nepotism is strong in politics and the arts).
Better have a word with farmers and family business owners or indeed as you allude to the likes of Geoge W Bush, Joe Kennedy III, Ben Gummer, Hilary Benn or Scott Eastwood or Roman Kemp or Liza Minelli all who got their posts or who were helped along the way by who their parents were
Because it's not required under law. Because it doesn't let these families get out of obeying the laws the rest of us do.
You may recall your meltdown on PB at the very thought that the Royal estates in Scotland might have to follow the same housing and environmental legislation as the rest of us. Just because of whom the [edit] last PoW had for mummy.
So? They also get trained from an early age to do their job and profession, much as our monarchs do and largely very well. No royal is exempt from the law except the King but then so are serving French and US Presidents immune from prosecution. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Nah, if you’re going to do it, do it the old fashioned way. No question of if/when they go then, let the grim reaper decide. I think part of the reason the previous Pope clung on was because he realised the abdication of Benedict raised more questions than it solved.
You can always have a regency if they’re not well enough to do the hand shaking/parliament opening etc stuff
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Nah, if you’re going to do it, do it the old fashioned way. No question of if/when they go then, let the grim reaper decide. I think part of the reason the previous Pope clung on was because he realised the abdication of Benedict raised more questions than it solved.
You can always have a regency if they’re not well enough to do the hand shaking/parliament opening etc stuff
The Emperor of Japan, the Queens of Denmark and the Netherlands and King of Spain have also abdicated before their 90th birthday and it has worked OK.
There is no point being a head of state or Pope even passed the average life expectancy, especially if you have a younger and more dynamic heir or successor by that age ready to go
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
George III never abdicated. You have a regency or counsellors of state acting on the monarch's behalf - it's not been uncommon.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
Just consider the wider implications of that logic. Dystopian.
(I concede that by the letter of the law it is, and that's mad)
Someone should hold a sign up saying "I would support Palestine Action if it wasn't illegal"
Or "I oppose the proscription of Palestine Action whilst making no comment on whether I support the group itself because that might be considered illegal!"
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
I'd like to thank the British police for preventing this wannabee terrorist from attempting to kill British Muslims.
As a member of the science nerd community I am outraged that the News Media should pin this on nerdism, rather than racist shithousery.
What happens if you are caught making explosives... but you're white, so you can't be a terrorist! You get headlines like...
ITV: "Science 'nerd' guilty of making explosives in mum's garden"
Sky: "Self-styled 'science nerd' convicted after homemade explosives found in garden shed"
BBC: "'Nerdy' Caddington man made explosive devices in shed - court"
Police found radioactive substances, ammunition, poison and recreational drugs as well. The guy had a previous conviction for actual bodily harm, and, to quote Sky, "After his arrest, police uncovered a stream of racist chat on WhatsApp in which Whittaker vented hate towards a Luton mosque."
If you read the story, he was found with explosives, charged and convicted of that.
He *claimed* to be a science nerd.
In justification of charging him, and to push back against the “harmless nerd” narrative, the police produced evidence of racist messaging.
The reason he wasn’t described as a terrorist (or charged as such) was that he had done anything terroristic. Yet.
Things that aren't terrorism:
- Trying to burn asylum hotel down - Blowing up ULEZ cameras with bombs - making bombs in a shed - radioactive stuff (dirty bomb?)
Terrorism:
- peacefully protesting the banning of a proscribed group
Holding a sign which says "I support Palestine Action" is protesting the banning in a way. But it's also supporting the banned group. Would they be arrested if the sign said "Palestine Action should not have been banned"?
Just consider the wider implications of that logic. Dystopian.
(I concede that by the letter of the law it is, and that's mad)
Someone should hold a sign up saying "I would support Palestine Action if it wasn't illegal"
That's like the interview with the boss:
Employee: what would you do if I said you were an idiot Boss: I'd sack you. Employee: what would you do if I thought something about you Boss: I couldn't do anything if you were thinking it Employee: okay, I think you're an idiot.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
If it ain't broke don't fix it. The monarchy is serving us pretty well. It's a source of political stability in an uncertain world and a source of continuity in a time of flux. IMHO we would be mad to throw it away.
@maxh to answer your question, I see Corbyn as directly threatening the economic and physical security of my family.
If Corbyn were elected PM I'd expect him to attack my income, and come after my assets. I'd also expect him to ignore the advice of the security services where it didn't accord to his pre-existing beliefs, and even defund them, as well as the military and police, leaving us vulnerable to state action by Russia/China and organised terrorist acts. In time, I think he'd also try and qualify or put restrictions on the democratic process too.
If Trump were elected PM I think would favour himself and the business interests of his family, he would try and cut across due process, he would second guess judges, he'd raise tariffs, he'd corrode public standards of behaviours, and he'd damage a lot of relationships, but he wouldn't attack people's income and assets and, after a lot of bluster, and no doubt sacking some people he didn't like, he would by and large act on security advice.
I don't think it's a difficult choice. Thankfully, we are not faced with it.
There are no circumstances in which I would ever vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Thanks, I appreciate the reply. It makes sense to me; I disagree (I would, wouldn't I) but appreciate your reasoning.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
I know how Popes and Presidents are elected, HYUFD - I'm not a simpleton!
The point is that they ARE elected - they are a political choice that is made.
The central argument for a monarchy (and, as I say, I'm not a monarchist) is that they are there by accident of birth, freeing us from the need to make any political choice at all. As soon as you dangle abdication out there, you weaken that because the political debate starts over whether and when it happens. That doesn't destroy the institution overnight, clearly, but it weakens it by undermining a central argument for its existence.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
George III never abdicated. You have a regency or counsellors of state acting on the monarch's behalf - it's not been uncommon.
But would that wash these days? A monarch who is never seen? It sounds a bit, well yes, Regency.
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
Every now and then I read an article in the Spectator that doesn't enrage me to apoplexy but instead fills me with a weary amazement that somebody wrote an article this bad and offered it to the editor, who then accepted it without laughing in his face and telling him to f**k off. I give you the latest in a lineage that includes Adrian Chiles and Quentin Letts, Gus Carter's toast related diatribe.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
Government by fortune cookie.
Sod that. I want government via 'truth or dare'.
I want government via 'Cards Against Humanity.'
I thought Boris Johnson was a card against humanity.
Blanche we share very little politically, but you are doing a wonderful job of tearing Starmer apart by simply reposting the utter drivel of his twitter account. Chapeau.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
If a monarch became unable to function for health reasons (eg dementia) abdication would have to be considered surely?
George III never abdicated. You have a regency or counsellors of state acting on the monarch's behalf - it's not been uncommon.
But would that wash these days? A monarch who is never seen? It sounds a bit, well yes, Regency.
Why not? When Charles III was temporarily ill, his functions were formally carried out by Camilla, William, Anne and Edward as Counsellors of State under Letters Patent. If he was more permanently incapacitated then the Regent would be William under a similar mechanism (essentially he'd be King in all but name, which is what will happen when his father dies anyway).
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
Entirely self-indulgent, apologies. My photo quota of the day.
Wow. Which one is you?
Green helmet. Viewcode: Pic was taken by our coach, who was also in the door (it's a very wide-angle camera). You can just see her arm with the black band on it in the bottom left of the picture.
What does that actually mean? Scratch one-man-one-vote and just have community leaders at the head of mobs? Local referenda that can vote for things that'll upset the Guardian? Some kind of libertarian paradise? What?!?
Government by fortune cookie.
Sod that. I want government via 'truth or dare'.
I want government via 'Cards Against Humanity.'
I thought Boris Johnson was a card against humanity.
Every now and then I read an article in the Spectator that doesn't enrage me to apoplexy but instead fills me with a weary amazement that somebody wrote an article this bad and offered it to the editor, who then accepted it without laughing in his face and telling him to f**k off. I give you the latest in a lineage that includes Adrian Chiles and Quentin Letts, Gus Carter's toast related diatribe.
You might enjoy the book by Sarah Vine 'How not to be a Political wife'. It fills in several gaps in our knowledge of her ex husband and his poor judgement. She being a prime example
Every now and then I read an article in the Spectator that doesn't enrage me to apoplexy but instead fills me with a weary amazement that somebody wrote an article this bad and offered it to the editor, who then accepted it without laughing in his face and telling him to f**k off. I give you the latest in a lineage that includes Adrian Chiles and Quentin Letts, Gus Carter's toast related diatribe.
It appears to be mandatory when PMs get to the point of serious unpopularity (or even before) when their opponents get Derangement Syndrome and cast around for pretty much anything they can criticise them for, no matter how petty or minor.
Starmer is not an easy man to like right now, and he does have a dizzying talent to grate quite significantly on one’s nerves - a certain je ne sais quoi in the annoyance stakes - but calling him out for a toaster is taking it a bit far.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
I know how Popes and Presidents are elected, HYUFD - I'm not a simpleton!
The point is that they ARE elected - they are a political choice that is made.
The central argument for a monarchy (and, as I say, I'm not a monarchist) is that they are there by accident of birth, freeing us from the need to make any political choice at all. As soon as you dangle abdication out there, you weaken that because the political debate starts over whether and when it happens. That doesn't destroy the institution overnight, clearly, but it weakens it by undermining a central argument for its existence.
Yes and the monarch still gets the role by accident of birth, no monarch in UK or English history that I am aware of got the job after 85.
Given a retirement age of 85 for monarchs could be set in law there would be no debate over whether or when it happened either
Entirely self-indulgent, apologies. My photo quota of the day.
Wow. Which one is you?
Green helmet. Viewcode: Pic was taken by our coach, who was also in the door (it's a very wide-angle camera). You can just see her arm with the black band on it in the bottom left of the picture.
Britain's newest rail station: Beaulieu Park, near Chelmsford, opened Sunday. I took this pic yesterday:
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
I think someone else put it very well (@Malmesbury?) when they posited that @Foxy's stance is in reaction to the apparent highlighting of a particular case of a man behaving as a sexual predator, because that man happened to come over on a small boat.
I have sympathy with this reaction, but it is nevertheless a mistake to excuse a particular case; we should be highlighting every case and, as you say, clamping down until it is no longer a thing.
A question, not so much for you @Cyclefree as I know and respect the strength of your views on this, but perhaps for others: if we are to take the stance that @Cyclefree advocates for (and I agree with) against sexual violence, why should we not take a similar stance against transphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, ethno-nationalism and the like? In every case, there is a human on the other end of abuse who deserves our protection. Surely, we are either striving for equality for all or none?
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?
Some more on the story;
The vote by 63 Labour MPs against Nigel Farage’s ten-minute rule bill on the UK leaving the European convention on human rights – without which the Commons would have backed the bill – happened because a few Labour backbenchers warned whips and the party hierarchy that they had to act.
While 10-minute rule bills have no chance of becoming law without subsequent government backing, MPs including Stella Creasy warned that allowing Farage’s bill to be passed would send a terrible signal to European neighbours, who would not necessarily understand the purely symbolic impact of the vote.
The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote. After a pushback, this was amended to say that while frontbenchers should do this, those on the backbenches could vote if they wanted.
“To let such a bill pass at a time of sensitivity in negotiations over our European deal would be taken badly,” Creasy said.
And the party splits; The 95 MPs voting for Farage’s proposal to leave the ECHR came from: The Conservatives: 87 Reform UK: 3 DUP: 2 Independents: 2 (Rupert Lowe and Patrick Spencer) TUV: 1
And the 155 MPs voting against came from: Lib Dems: 64 Labour: 63 Independents: 10 SNP: 7 Plaid Cymru: 4 Green party: 4 Alliance: 1 SDLP: 1 UUP: 1
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
Entirely self-indulgent, apologies. My photo quota of the day.
Wow. Which one is you?
Green helmet. Viewcode: Pic was taken by our coach, who was also in the door (it's a very wide-angle camera). You can just see her arm with the black band on it in the bottom left of the picture.
BTW what plane was it please? Obviously specially adapted anyway with the commuter monkey-hanger bars.
Every now and then I read an article in the Spectator that doesn't enrage me to apoplexy but instead fills me with a weary amazement that somebody wrote an article this bad and offered it to the editor, who then accepted it without laughing in his face and telling him to f**k off. I give you the latest in a lineage that includes Adrian Chiles and Quentin Letts, Gus Carter's toast related diatribe.
Or the government knew they'd win, so why bother getting everyone in to vote?
Some more on the story;
The vote by 63 Labour MPs against Nigel Farage’s ten-minute rule bill on the UK leaving the European convention on human rights – without which the Commons would have backed the bill – happened because a few Labour backbenchers warned whips and the party hierarchy that they had to act.
While 10-minute rule bills have no chance of becoming law without subsequent government backing, MPs including Stella Creasy warned that allowing Farage’s bill to be passed would send a terrible signal to European neighbours, who would not necessarily understand the purely symbolic impact of the vote.
The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote. After a pushback, this was amended to say that while frontbenchers should do this, those on the backbenches could vote if they wanted.
“To let such a bill pass at a time of sensitivity in negotiations over our European deal would be taken badly,” Creasy said.
And the party splits; The 95 MPs voting for Farage’s proposal to leave the ECHR came from: The Conservatives: 87 Reform UK: 3 DUP: 2 Independents: 2 (Rupert Lowe and Patrick Spencer) TUV: 1
And the 155 MPs voting against came from: Lib Dems: 64 Labour: 63 Independents: 10 SNP: 7 Plaid Cymru: 4 Green party: 4 Alliance: 1 SDLP: 1 UUP: 1
Entirely self-indulgent, apologies. My photo quota of the day.
Wow. Which one is you?
Green helmet. Viewcode: Pic was taken by our coach, who was also in the door (it's a very wide-angle camera). You can just see her arm with the black band on it in the bottom left of the picture.
BTW what plane was it please? Obviously specially adapted anyway with the commuter monkey-hanger bars.
A Cessna Grand Caravan (with something called a Blackhawk conversion to make the engine more powerful). They're standard fare in the skydiving world.
I once jumped out of an old Russian Mi-8 helicopter in the Slovak republic, but it was somewhat sketchy - it rattled a lot at 14,000 ft!
The best hope for Republicans is that the William and Kate kids grow up well-adjusted enough to realise that they don't want to be part of the circus and abdicate when they reach adulthood.
Why should we give republicans hope?
PB is a very weird demographic that seems to have ideological objections to monarchy.
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
"Seeking answers about life and the afterlife, he turned to local mediums before eventually being guided back to the Catholic faith by Professor Vincenzo Pepe.
After renouncing Satanism, Longo took a vow of celibacy and devoted himself to charitable works.
He founded the Pontifical Shrine of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary of Pompeii, as well as an orphanage for girls in 1887 and an institute for the sons of prisoners in 1892. In 1922, he established another institute for the daughters of prisoners. He also volunteered for two years at the Neapolitan Hospital for Incurables.
Longo died in 1926 and was remembered for his dramatic transformation from a life of darkness to one of faith and service, ultimately earning sainthood in the Catholic Church."
Pretty dispiriting for republicans that the most popular royal is up next in the hot seat. Charles III and all his baggage was probably their best hope for any traction and still can't get any momentum.
...Personally though I think the King is doing a fine job, the most intellectual and well read monarch we have had for centuries, a compassionate man and even if not as charismatic as his son or as tough as his mother was deserves to see out his reign for another decade or so before retiring to Highgrove and his plants with Camilla. Certainly better our King than President Starmer or Farage
I agree but I think he, like his mother, will die in the saddle. My concern is that that time will come too soon.
I think he will get to 85 and then abdicated in favour of his son. If he really had pancreatic cancer he would likely be dead by now
I think it's a huge mistake for monarchists to support abdication/retirement for monarchs.
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
Not really, even Popes and US Presidents can now retire by mid 80s.
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
Presidents and Popes are both elected, so conceding the principle that who does the job is ultimately a choice isn't really a problem. They are political jobs, and who does them is a political choice. Conceding the point for monarchs, who have their place in the order of succession by chance, is a problem - if you say it's ultimately a choice, you're conceding a huge point.
Popes aren't elected by the people or even all Roman Catholics but a small college of cardinals.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No state control of the economy =socialism
Isn't no state control of the economy something else ?
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.
However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.
Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit
The article title "Fewer than half of Brits support retaining the monarchy" would be more accurately phrased as "A plurality of Brits oppose abolishing the monarchy"
Depends what point you're trying to make. If it's to indicate a lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy, the title is accurate - most people at best don't care or actively want to get rid of it.
Indifference is what the monarchy most fears. Once most of the populace doesn’t give a fig for the mystique of someone who fantasised about being a tampon anointed by God to rule over us, it’s over.
No, even then still better than President Farage or Starmer
When I was young I opposed the monarchy on the grounds that it sanctified the principle of hereditary privilege and I'd argue that case quite strongly in a loud voice with some jabbing of fingers. These days I've become a bit more susceptible to the sort of 'would the alternative be an improvement in practice?' prevarication befitting of a man in his mid-sixties. Still, if there were a Keep/Scrap referendum I'd probably vote S. It's essentially a crazy way to select a head of state.
Referendums are of course pointless as Brexit proved anyway. MPs and peers refused to vote to implement Brexit and the signed Withdrawal Agreements for 3 years after the 2016 EU referendum Leave vote and only the Conservative majority at the 2019 general election got it done.
So unless the Greens win a general election majority we will likely always keep our constitutional monarchy
I was part of the internal Trump administration team trying to convince the president to end the shutdown in 2018 - 2019 — for 35 days — before people went hungry, workers lost pay, and government services collapsed.
I was part of the internal Trump administration team trying to convince the president to end the shutdown in 2018 - 2019 — for 35 days — before people went hungry, workers lost pay, and government services collapsed.
Two federal prosecutors have been placed on leave at the direction of the White House after filing a sentencing memo seeking 27 months in prison for a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter who brought illegal guns and ammunition to President Obama's house in 2023. https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1983547085531271428
The best hope for Republicans is that the William and Kate kids grow up well-adjusted enough to realise that they don't want to be part of the circus and abdicate when they reach adulthood.
Highly unlikely and even then Prince Archie would then become our first mixed race King, or Princess Lilibet, Sienna, Athena, August or Ernest or the Earl of Wessex or Lady Louise would take the throne
After the obsession in the media with the fact Andrew slept with a 17 year old, stupidly but legally in the UK given age of consent is 16 and over the fact he paid £8 million for the Royal Lodge lease and refurbishments for a, again legal, peppercorn rent little surprise.
However, still a comfortable 18% lead for monarchy over republic even in the new MiC poll. A massive 66% of Tories for retaining the monarchy and a large 65% of Reform voters for retaining the monarchy as well. A significant 18% lead for retaining the monarchy amongst LD voters and a small 10% lead for the monarchy amongst Labour voters as well.
Clearly more Green voters want a republic than to keep the monarchy but given if Polansi won a majority he would whack up tax and nationalise so much industry and suck up to Hamas harder than Corbyn so we would be a near Marxist state that would be the least of our worries.
What is going on with people on here over the past few days trying to miminize disgusting behaviour. The obsession isn't JUST he did this, it is that a senior member of the royal was best buds with a profilic sex trafficer, continued that friendships for years after being convicted, let said individual into the heart of royal family with invites to parties for their kids, and then has lied repeatedly about it.
The obsession is from republicans, maybe including you, when there is no evidence Andrew did anything illegal no matter how stupid and when you largely ignore the likes of Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Kevin Spacey, Mandelson etc who were also in Epstein's orbit
Quite.
I think HY misses the point. I am (very gently) a monarchist, for the reasons OLB wrote upthread. But I can also see that our Royal Family, if they are to play any sensible function in modern society, should be held to a higher moral standard than politicians or actors. The late Queen did this very well and, notwithstanding his complicated relationships with Diana and Camilla, so does Charles imv. Thus when a fairly senior Royal is found to be in Epstein's world, I think it rightly gets more focus than a list of Americans or a politician who is known already to be pretty odious.
When I was young I opposed the monarchy on the grounds that it sanctified the principle of hereditary privilege and I'd argue that case quite strongly in a loud voice with some jabbing of fingers. These days I've become a bit more susceptible to the sort of 'would the alternative be an improvement in practice?' prevarication befitting of a man in his mid-sixties. Still, if there were a Keep/Scrap referendum I'd probably vote S. It's essentially a crazy way to select a head of state.
Referendums are of course pointless as Brexit proved anyway. MPs and peers refused to vote to implement Brexit and the signed Withdrawal Agreements for 3 years after the 2016 EU referendum Leave vote and only the Conservative majority at the 2019 general election got it done.
So unless the Greens win a general election majority we will likely always keep our constitutional monarchy
After the Brexit debacle I think I'm more opposed to Referendums than I am the Monarchy.
Comments
Renewal means handing power back to people with skin in the game - people who know what their communities need most.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1983574128578769407
- Blowing up ULEZ cameras is destroying things, not trying to terrorise people. Note that setting off explosions to destroy things can carry heavier sentences than “terrorism”
- Making bombs in a shed isn't terrorising anyone. It is a different crime.
- Fiddling around with radioactive stuff is legal/illegal depending on the nature of your experiment. Again not terrorising anyone until you use it for that.
As to PA - you have to ask what is between Starmer’s ears. I’ve got no fucking clue, either.
The very least the government can do is give us a level playing field. As farcical as it is, the PA arrests probably are too - but it's a disgrace that the same standards aren't applied to people making fucking bombs.
(I concede that by the letter of the law it is, and that's mad)
A fairly substantial enterprise, with three 12-car platforms, almost full-length canopies, two footbridges, two lifts, food outlets (upcoming), a bus station, two sets of loos, and a large car park, which seemed well-used.
Full suite of pictures here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Sunil060902+Beaulieu+Park&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image
As soon as you get into that game, you make it a matter of choice whether the monarch stays or goes, and it's the thin end of the wedge. You get political debates about whether and when an individual should call it a day, and lose the central advantage that it's all a lottery and separate from politics.
I'm not a monarchist myself, just saying they lose their trump card with talk of abdication.
You may recall your meltdown on PB at the very thought that the Royal estates in Scotland might have to follow the same housing and environmental legislation as the rest of us. Just because of whom the [edit] last PoW had for mummy.
Edit: but the full suite is visible nicely, many thanks.
Terrorism is about terrorising people.
Except I deleted from this thread by mistake, then reinserted
The point I'm making is that entirely inconsistent application of these laws, as silly as they are. It's infuriating.
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
As to making bombs, there’s still a surprising number of people who just like making a bang out in the woods. Which is why the police justified their prosecution by the racist and threatening communications.
Hell, my brother *accidently* made gun-cotton when we were teenagers.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy
I wouldn't advocate abdication for any monarch before that age though
You can always have a regency if they’re not well enough to do the hand shaking/parliament opening etc stuff
There is no point being a head of state or Pope even passed the average life expectancy, especially if you have a younger and more dynamic heir or successor by that age ready to go
Just need a big sign and small writing.
Employee: what would you do if I said you were an idiot
Boss: I'd sack you.
Employee: what would you do if I thought something about you
Boss: I couldn't do anything if you were thinking it
Employee: okay, I think you're an idiot.
Even US Presidents are elected by an electoral college of electors from each state, not directly by the people either.
It is also nothing to do with choice either, the next in line of succession still becomes monarch, just they have a retirement age of 85
The point is that they ARE elected - they are a political choice that is made.
The central argument for a monarchy (and, as I say, I'm not a monarchist) is that they are there by accident of birth, freeing us from the need to make any political choice at all. As soon as you dangle abdication out there, you weaken that because the political debate starts over whether and when it happens. That doesn't destroy the institution overnight, clearly, but it weakens it by undermining a central argument for its existence.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tragedy-of-starmers-breakfast/
Oh God, really?
"Speak to any 14 year old girl, or woman who remembers being 14. Such creepy behaviour by older men is very common."
@Foxy on a previous thread.
Yes - as someone who endured this and worse at 14 and on numerous occasions since then it is creepy and criminal and very common.
And it is very common because men like you, I'm sorry to say, do not take it seriously, underplay it because it has happened "since time immemorial" (your words) so girls should just put up with it and it is far too much expense and bother to build the facilities to lock up the men who make women and girls' life a misery with this sort of behaviour.
What is needed instead is for us to clamp down hard on men who do this, the first time they do it to send a very clear message that this is intolerable and will not be tolerated. Instead of expecting women to endure it, letting such men carry on with their repellent behaviour for years then being all shocked when they carry out some appalling crime and we learn of all the previous occasions when we turned a blind eye or were far too lenient because .... Well why? Because men can never be expected to behave or accept the consequences of their actions, apparently.
Women are so fucking fed up and furious at being thought of as second class citizens whose interests don't matter, whose rights to basic decency must always come second to those of men. Every single fucking day in this country we see example after example of this contempt for women and girls, even from professionals such as @ Foxy who might be expected to know better.
Starmer is not an easy man to like right now, and he does have a dizzying talent to grate quite significantly on one’s nerves - a certain je ne sais quoi in the annoyance stakes - but calling him out for a toaster is taking it a bit far.
Given a retirement age of 85 for monarchs could be set in law there would be no debate over whether or when it happened either
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rj45n4x5eo
Cloud computing – what could go wrong?
It was dangerous enough walking under their roost at Sydney Botanic Gardens even avoiding those particular paths as much as possible.
I think someone else put it very well (@Malmesbury?) when they posited that @Foxy's stance is in reaction to the apparent highlighting of a particular case of a man behaving as a sexual predator, because that man happened to come over on a small boat.
I have sympathy with this reaction, but it is nevertheless a mistake to excuse a particular case; we should be highlighting every case and, as you say, clamping down until it is no longer a thing.
A question, not so much for you @Cyclefree as I know and respect the strength of your views on this, but perhaps for others: if we are to take the stance that @Cyclefree advocates for (and I agree with) against sexual violence, why should we not take a similar stance against transphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, ethno-nationalism and the like? In every case, there is a human on the other end of abuse who deserves our protection. Surely, we are either striving for equality for all or none?
How could it be otherwise?
I once jumped out of an old Russian Mi-8 helicopter in the Slovak republic, but it was somewhat sketchy - it rattled a lot at 14,000 ft!
PB is a very weird demographic that seems to have ideological objections to monarchy.
Most of us love it.
After renouncing Satanism, Longo took a vow of celibacy and devoted himself to charitable works.
He founded the Pontifical Shrine of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary of Pompeii, as well as an orphanage for girls in 1887 and an institute for the sons of prisoners in 1892. In 1922, he established another institute for the daughters of prisoners. He also volunteered for two years at the Neapolitan Hospital for Incurables.
Longo died in 1926 and was remembered for his dramatic transformation from a life of darkness to one of faith and service, ultimately earning sainthood in the Catholic Church."
So unless the Greens win a general election majority we will likely always keep our constitutional monarchy
Farage would have been all over the media if his Bill had passed the commons and it would have sent a dreadful message to the EU .
Here’s what I learned: he doesn’t give a shit.
https://x.com/MilesTaylorUSA/status/1983540082691711246
Breaking on MSNBC:
Two federal prosecutors have been placed on leave at the direction of the White House after filing a sentencing memo seeking 27 months in prison for a pardoned Jan. 6 rioter who brought illegal guns and ammunition to President Obama's house in 2023.
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1983547085531271428
But I can also see that our Royal Family, if they are to play any sensible function in modern society, should be held to a higher moral standard than politicians or actors. The late Queen did this very well and, notwithstanding his complicated relationships with Diana and Camilla, so does Charles imv.
Thus when a fairly senior Royal is found to be in Epstein's world, I think it rightly gets more focus than a list of Americans or a politician who is known already to be pretty odious.