I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
And had she lived she could have sent herself a 100th birthday telegram today. Shades of Fats Waller sitting right down to write himself a letter ..
I confess, I still miss The Queen
It is a measure of her charisma and emotional hold over us all. I genuinely miss her. I miss her more than I miss my own father, who also died a few years ago. Is that bad and weird of me? Maybe, but
1. my dad was a vain selfish twat, albeit talented and genuinely loving at times, so I have an ambivalence
and
2. The Queen was THE QUEEN and everything has gone wrong ever since she snuffed out
Edit to say, I should also add
3. I can be quite ruthlessly cold. I don't give a fuck if things die, in general
Craig Brown's Voyage around the Queen is quite amusing
Is it? Ooh, must check it out
I thought his "Ma'am Darling" biography of Princess Margaret was absolute genius: superbly readable, informative and bitchy, while also reinventing the biographical genre
Brown's "Voyage" invents a new genre - a biography not about the putative subject but how she affected/influenced other people, - v. enjoyable
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
I was thinking of a road trip in Northern Ireland and Ireland this summer. Not sure about it at the moment given the fuel situation though.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
I was thinking of a road trip in Northern Ireland and Ireland this summer. Not sure about it at the moment given the fuel situation though.
Surely there'll be enterprising locals making petrol-grade potcheen?
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
I was thinking of a road trip in Northern Ireland and Ireland this summer. Not sure about it at the moment given the fuel situation though.
Honestly, Belfast is incredible. I think we overlook it as it is ours and it has the bad rep. Others overlook it for maybe the same reason, plus the weather
But given the choice of an amazing weekend destination for food and drink and architecture and history and prehistory, and a place you will never ever forget, Belfast beats anywhere in Europe hands down, except much bigger places like London, Paris, Rome
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
Nonsense. CoPilot for example gives enterprise security sandboxing.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
It won't we do NOT want politician heads of state in the UK, full stop
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
Nonsense. CoPilot for example gives enterprise security sandboxing.
Okaaaayy…not at all worrying a solicitor is unaware that was recently proven to be rather less effective than claimed.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
It won't we do NOT want politician heads of state in the UK, full stop
Talking of politician heads of state... blimey.
There's no other way to say it: This AP-NORC poll is atrocious for Trump.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
It won't we do NOT want politician heads of state in the UK, full stop
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
I was thinking of a road trip in Northern Ireland and Ireland this summer. Not sure about it at the moment given the fuel situation though.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
This morning Trump was telling media he was basically going to bomb Iran back in to the Stone Age yet again.
Now he is proposing an indefinite ceasefire.
Stable Genius my arse as Jim Royale would have said.
The world is in a relationship with an abuser. This sort of unpredictable behaviour is straight out of an abuser's handbook. We never know what he is going to do next. We abase ourselves trying to keep him happy. We are constantly fearful about how he's going to kick off again.
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
So let me get this straight: Iran not only refuses further negotiations, it doesn't even bother to show up, is keeping the Strait of Hormuz blocked -- and Donald Trump, after all the bravado, threats of extermination, and chest-thumping, just extends the truce, does nothing, and waits for the regime to “submit their proposal”?
If that’s not a humiliating fiasco and a display of complete weakness, I don’t know what is.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
Well, I think it would have to be surprisingly sudden, because there's no sign of it happening otherwise.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
Was Richard III the first?
He was indeed.
I'm wondering whether Edward IV was the second?
As with the first, Shakespeare provides the source.
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
"The site includes the ruins of a cathedral, seven churches, two round towers, three high crosses and a large collection of Early Christian grave slabs"
Sweet!
Ta
I aim to go back to Norn ASAP, I really enjoyed it, and this time combine it with some of Ireland I don't know, eg the east and south coast
Tonight's ITV Wales poll would make Reform the largest party in the Senedd with 37 seats to 36 for Plaid. Though if Plaid got Labour support they could combined scrape a majority
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
Was Richard III the first?
He was indeed.
I'm wondering whether Edward IV was the second?
As with the first, Shakespeare provides the source.
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
And the head of state of the largest western republic is...Donald Trump
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
And the head of state of the largest western republic is...Donald Trump
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
Was Richard III the first?
He was indeed.
I'm wondering whether Edward IV was the second?
As with the first, Shakespeare provides the source.
Henry III?
Ah. Possibly. Just that Shakespeare depicts Edward IV as a grade A lecher.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
Well, I think it would have to be surprisingly sudden, because there's no sign of it happening otherwise.
My reasoning is that support is broad, but not necessarily deep.
I support the monarchy, I think it works and potential benefits (which do exist) are not really worth the disruption and potential downsides. But if Charles was revealed as an Andrew the system may not be robust even though he could be made to abdicate.
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
Nonsense. CoPilot for example gives enterprise security sandboxing.
Okaaaayy…not at all worrying a solicitor is unaware that was recently proven to be rather less effective than claimed.
Law firms run everything on Office365 including emails. If Microsoft’s security is no good then AI is the least of our concerns.
🗣️ Ed Miliband: "I steered well clear of Mandelson when I became Labour leader in 2010."
He tells @SophyRidgeSky both he and David Lammy were "worried" about Peter Mandelson's appointment to be UK ambassador to the U.S.
Starmer tried to get him removed from Energy/climate job he loves and believes will be his legacy because McSweeney said so.
No surprise Ed doesn't throw the drowning man any kind of life bouy.
And I suspect it was Mandelson who ended Lammy's reign as Foreign Secretary for the crime of sharing the credit for improved UK/US relations. No solid evidence mind.
Interesting that George Osborne was said to be in line for the Washington job and was also involved in JD Vance's trip.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
And the head of state of the largest western republic is...Donald Trump
Off topic: Does the Loser have a coherent strategy for dealing with Iran?
If so, part of it must be to mystify everyone with contradictory statements.
For example:
Appearing on Sunday morning news shows, top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration confirmed the plan for the next round of diplomatic talks in Islamabad, Pakistan: Vice President JD Vance, whom Trump had tapped earlier this month to lead the U.S. negotiations, would be there again.
Even as United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright were confirming Vance’s participation, however, Trump was telling the networks the opposite. Vance wouldn’t be traveling to Pakistan because of security concerns, the president told journalists from ABC and MS NOW in separate phone calls Sunday morning.
🗣️ Ed Miliband: "I steered well clear of Mandelson when I became Labour leader in 2010."
He tells @SophyRidgeSky both he and David Lammy were "worried" about Peter Mandelson's appointment to be UK ambassador to the U.S.
Starmer tried to get him removed from Energy/climate job he loves and believes will be his legacy because McSweeney said so.
No surprise Ed doesn't throw the drowning man any kind of life bouy.
And I suspect it was Mandelson who ended Lammy's reign as Foreign Secretary for the crime of sharing the credit for improved UK/US relations. No solid evidence mind.
Interesting that George Osborne was said to be in line for the Washington job and was also involved in JD Vance's trip.
Typical of the bros labour five aside soccer and beer club that they wouldn't keep the highly rated woman ambassador in post who Trump and Wiles both wanted to stay.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
Well, I think it would have to be surprisingly sudden, because there's no sign of it happening otherwise.
My reasoning is that support is broad, but not necessarily deep.
I support the monarchy, I think it works and potential benefits (which do exist) are not really worth the disruption and potential downsides. But if Charles was revealed as an Andrew the system may not be robust even though he could be made to abdicate.
It would as the public get no say in it, Parliament would just make the next in line monarch
Off topic: Does the Loser have a coherent strategy for dealing with Iran?
If so, part of it must be to mystify everyone with contradictory statements.
For example:
Appearing on Sunday morning news shows, top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration confirmed the plan for the next round of diplomatic talks in Islamabad, Pakistan: Vice President JD Vance, whom Trump had tapped earlier this month to lead the U.S. negotiations, would be there again.
Even as United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz and Energy Secretary Chris Wright were confirming Vance’s participation, however, Trump was telling the networks the opposite. Vance wouldn’t be traveling to Pakistan because of security concerns, the president told journalists from ABC and MS NOW in separate phone calls Sunday morning.
Again the best hypothesis (well, maybe..) to fit the facts is that there's actually two identical Donald Trumps, and they decide to do and say the opposite of each other purely as the world's most irritating in-joke/market manipulation trick (delete as appropriate).
The alternative doesn't really bear thinking about.
So, it's support for Britain, rather than the United Kingdom. Interesting.
Britain (as opposed to Great Britain) has long been synonymous with the United Kingdom. It was Boris who started to shove UK down our throats to distract from his selling out Northern Ireland in his Brexit deal after saying there could be no barrier down the Irish Sea.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
There's the wild card I suppose of someone who we don't often talk about/have barely heard of standing on college green tomorrow and announcing the race for leader has started, they are standing and they will spend today gathering the 80 nominations.
🗣️ Ed Miliband: "I steered well clear of Mandelson when I became Labour leader in 2010."
He tells @SophyRidgeSky both he and David Lammy were "worried" about Peter Mandelson's appointment to be UK ambassador to the U.S.
Starmer tried to get him removed from Energy/climate job he loves and believes will be his legacy because McSweeney said so.
No surprise Ed doesn't throw the drowning man any kind of life bouy.
And I suspect it was Mandelson who ended Lammy's reign as Foreign Secretary for the crime of sharing the credit for improved UK/US relations. No solid evidence mind.
Interesting that George Osborne was said to be in line for the Washington job and was also involved in JD Vance's trip.
Typical of the bros labour five aside soccer and beer club that they wouldn't keep the highly rated woman ambassador in post who Trump and Wiles both wanted to stay.
It would be interesting to learn more about the reasons the Americans did not want Mandelson, and whether it relates to any evidence they held on his being a wrong'un.
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yes 80. But no need for a thorough-bred. Once someone announces they are seeking nominations, they'll be in line to get them unless others join in, so others would have to join in. In practice I still think it more likely than one of the leading lights will act first, because they will know a contest is bound to happen. And then there will be some consolidation, candidates withdrawing to throw their support behind others etc etc. Realistically I can't see more than 3 candidates reaching 80 nominations, Starmer not needing any of course.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
There's the wild card I suppose of someone who we don't often talk about/have barely heard of standing on college green tomorrow and announcing the race for leader has started, they are standing and they will spend today gathering the 80 nominations.
Bold but could break the dam??
But perhaps more likely on may 11th??
If there isn't the support for it then that would become obvious pretty quickly, and whoever that was would end up looking as daft as Anas Sarwar.
If there is the support for it, then the major contenders - Streeting, Rayner, whoever - will likely know, and will either have to make a move, or be tarred as bottling it.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
Was Richard III the first?
He was indeed.
Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor when she was twelve. And that was her second marriage.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
Was Richard III the first?
He was indeed.
Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor when she was twelve. And that was her second marriage.
(And wouldn't Richard III be the third ...?)
She was 4 months short of her 14th birthday when she gave birth to Henry Tudor, implying that she was still 12 at the point of conception.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
The Thai monarchy looks like it will fairly easily survive possibly the worst monarch imaginable, outside an actual serial killer
He doesn't even live in Thailand, he often lives in Germany with a harem of hookers and concubines, and glides around shopping centres in crop top jerseys, aged 60, carrying tiny dogs, one of which - Foo Foo - he made an Air Chief Marshall. He has multiple kids but he has disinherited most, the ones that aren't handicapped in some way, he also has a personal fortune of $60bn and a private army of 6000 soldiers
But I believe that when he dies the Thais will find a suitable candidate for succession: they really do not want to be a republic
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
A new opinion poll hosted by Pollfish on behalf of Irish citizen Anthony McDonnell shows support for monarchy in Jamaica, but only when the option of Jamaica having its own resident king or queen is included.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
A new opinion poll hosted by Pollfish on behalf of Irish citizen Anthony McDonnell shows support for monarchy in Jamaica, but only when the option of Jamaica having its own resident king or queen is included.
So still a monarchy preferred in principle over a republic
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
There's the wild card I suppose of someone who we don't often talk about/have barely heard of standing on college green tomorrow and announcing the race for leader has started, they are standing and they will spend today gathering the 80 nominations.
Bold but could break the dam??
But perhaps more likely on may 11th??
If I were Starmer, I would announce that I am standing down straight after the May elections, thereby giving a great big "Fuck you!" to Andy Burnham.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
A new opinion poll hosted by Pollfish on behalf of Irish citizen Anthony McDonnell shows support for monarchy in Jamaica, but only when the option of Jamaica having its own resident king or queen is included.
Ah, that's what I meant, technically correct, but not actually.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
It's frankly astonishing more have not followed suit. Judging by the wikipedia summaries Jamaica has had political consensus on dropping the monarchy for absolutely ages but just haven't gotten around to it yet despite that. Presumably they will at some point (it might be somewhere which requires a referendum), clearly not a high priority, but surprisingly not yet.
A new opinion poll hosted by Pollfish on behalf of Irish citizen Anthony McDonnell shows support for monarchy in Jamaica, but only when the option of Jamaica having its own resident king or queen is included.
Ah, that's what I meant, technically correct, but not actually.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
In the latter case the person died due to the contributory negligence, so arguably the latter was the more serious offence given in the former the cyclist only suffered some broken ribs and pelvis
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
The Thai monarchy looks like it will fairly easily survive possibly the worst monarch imaginable, outside an actual serial killer
He doesn't even live in Thailand, he often lives in Germany with a harem of hookers and concubines, and glides around shopping centres in crop top jerseys, aged 60, carrying tiny dogs, one of which - Foo Foo - he made an Air Chief Marshall. He has multiple kids but he has disinherited most, the ones that aren't handicapped in some way, he also has a personal fortune of $60bn and a private army of 6000 soldiers
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
There's the wild card I suppose of someone who we don't often talk about/have barely heard of standing on college green tomorrow and announcing the race for leader has started, they are standing and they will spend today gathering the 80 nominations.
Bold but could break the dam??
But perhaps more likely on may 11th??
If there isn't the support for it then that would become obvious pretty quickly, and whoever that was would end up looking as daft as Anas Sarwar.
If there is the support for it, then the major contenders - Streeting, Rayner, whoever - will likely know, and will either have to make a move, or be tarred as bottling it.
Labour is not yet properly reconciled to the scale of the electoral disaster that awaits on May 7th. There are sitting Labour councillors and members up and down the country forlornly going through the motions of last minute electioneering, most with the outside hope that it's going to be nothing like as bad in their local elections as all the national polls for general elections say. Optimism bias prevails as it always does at the coal face in the heat of elections.
But it's the hope that kills you. The mood will shatter in the morning of May 8th. 75%+ of seats defended will have been lost. MPs will have tallied up combined votes across their own constituencies and many will have discovered that Labour is in 3rd place in their parliamentary seat, not even remotely competitive. There will be a clamour for someone to make a move. Anyone will do just to start the process off.
Sir Keir warmly greeted by George Osborne visiting the British Museum with the King and Queen, Osborne no doubt delighted to meet a man now even more despised by the average British voter than he is
John McDonnell @johnmcdonnellMP · 18m Possibly the most bizarre intervention from anyone over madcap period of last 48 hours was Margaret Hodge on Newsnight depicting the attempt by Keir Starmer’s office to secure an ambassadorship for Matthew Doyle as some sort of redeployment scheme for unemployed No 10 staff.
They are all going to wait until Burnham is in Parliament.
You are guessing, and guessing wrong.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
To be a challenger you need 80 MP nominations? I think? So a stalking horse would have to be a bit a thorough-bred?
Yep - that is where those “facts” fall down in my opinion. My read is that for Burnham, Rayner, and Streeting the last thing they want is an early contest (re: not MP, HMRC, too close to Mandelson). So assuming they’ve got supporters, they aren’t going to be sending them all down to nominate a stalking horse to get someone over the eighty.
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
There's the wild card I suppose of someone who we don't often talk about/have barely heard of standing on college green tomorrow and announcing the race for leader has started, they are standing and they will spend today gathering the 80 nominations.
Bold but could break the dam??
But perhaps more likely on may 11th??
If there isn't the support for it then that would become obvious pretty quickly, and whoever that was would end up looking as daft as Anas Sarwar.
If there is the support for it, then the major contenders - Streeting, Rayner, whoever - will likely know, and will either have to make a move, or be tarred as bottling it.
Labour is not yet properly reconciled to the scale of the electoral disaster that awaits on May 7th. There are sitting Labour councillors and members up and down the country forlornly going through the motions of last minute electioneering, most with the outside hope that it's going to be nothing like as bad in their local elections as all the national polls for general elections say. Optimism bias prevails as it always does at the coal face in the heat of elections.
But it's the hope that kills you. The mood will shatter in the morning of May 8th. 75%+ of seats defended will have been lost. MPs will have tallied up combined votes across their own constituencies and many will have discovered that Labour is in 3rd place in their parliamentary seat, not even remotely competitive. There will be a clamour for someone to make a move. Anyone will do just to start the process off.
Anyone to jump to the Greens afterwards or would that be a little too obviously self-serving?
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
The whole problem with Andrew is that he doesn’t stick to wanking.
Edit - I should also point out that there was two Kings of England who were even creepier. One seriously considered marrying his 16 year old niece and the other in addition to raping multiple women (numbered in the hundreds) but married a twelve year old (and not purely in formal terms either.
Anyone know who they were?
In the Middle Ages plenty of nobles and royals married barely finished puberty girls, it looks repulsive to us now but was not unusual then and of course life expectancy was about half what it is now
Believe me these two struck even their contemporaries as utter creeps.
Edit - I should point out it wasn’t just their sexual depravity. They had also both usurped the throne and murdered their nephews to secure their rule. Not sure if that gives the game away as to who they were.
I don't think they will complain about "doxing" from hundreds of years beyond the grave, you know.
I just came across this video of "Jolene" played at 33 rpm. It's haunting and oddly magnificent. One of the comments said, "Billy Cyrus out here just tryna keep his man", which tickled me.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
I just came across this video of "Jolene" played at 33 rpm. It's haunting and oddly magnificent. One of the comments said, "Billy Cyrus out here just tryna keep his man", which tickled me.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
Illegality aside, the moral idea that infiltrating an organisation is funding it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Prosecute them for their vigilantism, but don't pretend black is white.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
Notice how all the anti-ICE protestors disappeared almost overnight, once the anti-Iran-war protests started?
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
Notice how all the anti-ICE protestors disappeared almost overnight, once the anti-Iran-war protests started?
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
Notice how all the anti-ICE protestors disappeared almost overnight, once the anti-Iran-war protests started?
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
Is Soros paying them?
Amongst others. There’s a whole web of these leftist NGOs in the States.
It’s not as prevalent in the UK thankfully, but when large groups turn up to protest yesterday’s news, with professionally-made and relevant signs, and assemble where there’s a stage and a PA system, then someone is getting a large bill for the event.
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
Notice how all the anti-ICE protestors disappeared almost overnight, once the anti-Iran-war protests started?
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
They actually disappeared somewhat before, which may have something to do with the dramatic reduction in ICE activity?
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
There has been a real change in this in recent years. Death by dangerous driving used to carry a serious risk of imprisonment but it was not guaranteed, especially if the accused was otherwise blameless, had a decent job etc. Now, it generally gets 5 years regardless. The courts (and the prosecution authorities) pay much more attention to the horrific consequences for the family and community, as with the terrible case @Cookie told us about yesterday.
Comments
BELFAST IS THE BEST CITY IN EUROPE
I cannot think of another city - certainly anything like its size - which combines amazing history, location, history, architecture, food, gin, history, death, mutilations, beer and history in such a concentrated space. The food can be EPIC - go to St George's Market. The history ranges from the Neolithic to the latest, via stately Georgian and mighty Victorian. The industrial history "linenopolis" is even more intense. And, of course, half the city is divided by peace walls because given the chance the locals will slaughter each other all over again
Belfast is the compound fracture of Europe, and all of Europe's religious and imperial history, it is the place where history is so painfully acute the broken bone has pierced the flesh and it is exposed. Now Berlin has gone its only rival is Kosovo, and there it is nowhere near as vivid and they don't have the oysters, linen mills and stout
BELFAST
It should be the number one city destination in the world
But given the choice of an amazing weekend destination for food and drink and architecture and history and prehistory, and a place you will never ever forget, Belfast beats anywhere in Europe hands down, except much bigger places like London, Paris, Rome
Patrick English
@PME_Politics
·
1h
Tomorrow morning! ⏰ @YouGov will be releasing our MRP of the 2026 London Borough elections.
If you've signed up to join us LIVE at @iNHouseComms, you'll be seeing the results before anyone else.
If you're waiting for the online drop, check @SkyNews and @politico
from 10.15am.
https://x.com/PME_Politics/status/2046671356129923215
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
There's no other way to say it: This AP-NORC poll is atrocious for Trump.
– Overall: 33-67
– Immigration: 40-59
– Iran: 32-67
– Economy: 30-70
– Cost of living: 23(!)-76
37% of Republicans disapprove of his handling of the economy, 47% disapprove on cost of living.
https://apnorc.org/projects/fewer-approve-of-trumps-handling-of-the-economy/?doing_wp_cron=1776803174.3578128814697265625000
https://bsky.app/profile/jamescdownie.bsky.social/post/3mjztbik3f22g
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
Where do I go to take out a restraining order?
@IAPonomarenko
So let me get this straight: Iran not only refuses further negotiations, it doesn't even bother to show up, is keeping the Strait of Hormuz blocked -- and Donald Trump, after all the bravado, threats of extermination, and chest-thumping, just extends the truce, does nothing, and waits for the regime to “submit their proposal”?
If that’s not a humiliating fiasco and a display of complete weakness, I don’t know what is.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/2046691830587134329
As with the first, Shakespeare provides the source.
Trump still cannot agree the conditions of this unconditional surrender.
Here's my prediction, based on the facts.
In less than a month, Starmer is going to be mortally wounded as his MPs weigh the implications of a meltdown in Labour representation in the local and devolved elections.
At that point, it will be Miliband's or pretty well anyone else's for the taking if they're the only challenger. It will be the optimal point for taking down Starmer. Just because Rayner would wait for HMRC the timing of the contest is not in her gift alone. So someone is going to trigger a contest, quite possibly a relatively obscure challenger wanting to make a name for themselves while earning the eternal gratitude of the PLP for taking the decisive step (Al Carns?) and for fear of missing the boat, all of the hopefuls will then pile in, minus of course Burnham.
Burnham may not be able to stand, but he'll still have an awful lot of leverage in the contest, and any new PM will want his wider popularity to rub off on them. So in return for backing Rayner or Miliband, I would not be surprised if Burnham made a deal to accept a peerage in order to serve as an ennobled Cabinet Minister while remaining as Greater Manchester Mayor. The law would allow him to do that, it only bars MPs not Lords from serving as elected mayors.
"The site includes the ruins of a cathedral, seven churches, two round towers, three high crosses and a large collection of Early Christian grave slabs"
Sweet!
Ta
I aim to go back to Norn ASAP, I really enjoyed it, and this time combine it with some of Ireland I don't know, eg the east and south coast
Gregg Carlstrom
@glcarlstrom
·
35m
You can almost watch the oil market thinking in real time here (this is the Brent futures contract for June):
1609 EST: Indefinite extension of the ceasefire! Great!
1610 EST: Wait, indefinite extension of the ceasefire means indefinite closure of Hormuz
https://x.com/glcarlstrom/status/2046689694767792550
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/2046647985908424873?s=20
I support the monarchy, I think it works and potential benefits (which do exist) are not really worth the disruption and potential downsides. But if Charles was revealed as an Andrew the system may not be robust even though he could be made to abdicate.
Interesting that George Osborne was said to be in line for the Washington job and was also involved in JD Vance's trip.
If so, part of it must be to mystify everyone with contradictory statements.
For example: source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/04/20/trump-iran-contradictory-statements/
That leaves the likes of Lammy, Milliband, Cooper as the last realistic big beasts (am currently discounting Reeves) who may push for a someone to seek the nominations. But I just don’t get the sense that they are going to pull the trigger. Especially absent any significant further developments - a sh!t May locals seems priced in now.
Starmer is cooking, but not yet cooked. I expect he’s going to try and control his time of leaving as best he can. Whether he can actually do that who knows.
"A motorist who deliberately ran over a cyclist after the victim spat on his luxury Land Rover during a road rage row has been jailed for 18 months" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/14/motorist-jailed-for-running-over-cyclist-who-spat-on-his-car#:~:text=Minshull Street crown court in,suddenly in front of him.
https://road.cc/content/news/driver-who-drove-cyclist-escapes-jail-and-driving-ban-289329
https://road.cc/content/news/dangerous-driver-avoids-jail-314747
Again the best hypothesis (well, maybe..) to fit the facts is that there's actually two identical Donald Trumps, and they decide to do and say the opposite of each other purely as the world's most irritating in-joke/market manipulation trick (delete as appropriate).
The alternative doesn't really bear thinking about.
Bold but could break the dam??
But perhaps more likely on may 11th??
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
If there is the support for it, then the major contenders - Streeting, Rayner, whoever - will likely know, and will either have to make a move, or be tarred as bottling it.
And that was her second marriage.
(And wouldn't Richard III be the third ...?)
He doesn't even live in Thailand, he often lives in Germany with a harem of hookers and concubines, and glides around shopping centres in crop top jerseys, aged 60, carrying tiny dogs, one of which - Foo Foo - he made an Air Chief Marshall. He has multiple kids but he has disinherited most, the ones that aren't handicapped in some way, he also has a personal fortune of $60bn and a private army of 6000 soldiers
But I believe that when he dies the Thais will find a suitable candidate for succession: they really do not want to be a republic
A new opinion poll hosted by Pollfish on behalf of Irish citizen Anthony McDonnell shows support for monarchy in Jamaica, but only when the option of Jamaica having its own resident king or queen is included.
Investigation launched after peer’s failed vetting was made public
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/21/starmer-orders-mandelson-leak-inquiry/ (£££)
Stop digging!!
What are you struggling to understand?
One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
9-9 decider coming up Fan Zhengyi v Shaun Murphy.
Such is life!
But it's the hope that kills you. The mood will shatter in the morning of May 8th. 75%+ of seats defended will have been lost. MPs will have tallied up combined votes across their own constituencies and many will have discovered that Labour is in 3rd place in their parliamentary seat, not even remotely competitive. There will be a clamour for someone to make a move. Anyone will do just to start the process off.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15751961/Camilla-Keir-Starmer-Queen-Elizabeth-commemorations-pressure-Mandelson-vetting-scandal.html
"Terrorist who plotted to bomb London Stock Exchange was allowed to stay in UK on human rights grounds"
John McDonnell
@johnmcdonnellMP
·
18m
Possibly the most bizarre intervention from anyone over madcap period of last 48 hours was Margaret Hodge on Newsnight depicting the attempt by Keir Starmer’s office to secure an ambassadorship for Matthew Doyle as some sort of redeployment scheme for unemployed No 10 staff.
https://x.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/2046712184760086721
I just came across this video of "Jolene" played at 33 rpm. It's haunting and oddly magnificent. One of the comments said, "Billy Cyrus out here just tryna keep his man", which tickled me.
https://x.com/portraitinflesh/status/2046543657516339266?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
https://youtu.be/wOwblaKmyVw?si=4nl2V88YKzOzTYOW
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/25hf2zmx/motoring-statistical-bulletin.pdf
This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like.
https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
It’s not as prevalent in the UK thankfully, but when large groups turn up to protest yesterday’s news, with professionally-made and relevant signs, and assemble where there’s a stage and a PA system, then someone is getting a large bill for the event.
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.