|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 03 2021 00:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Is the queen destroying her “legacy” (which is already terrible to me, but I understand some people respected her) with her defense of prince Andrew? How do people in the UK see the prince Andrew thing? Are people disappointed she’s hopping in the ring for him?
Royals gonna royal. People who like the Royal family will continue to find reasons to do so.
Those of us who don’t like the institution but respect the Queen as a pretty dignified person in general, yeah I’d say it’s a black mark.
Frankly it’s scandalous more isn’t made of it over here, but hey what can you do?
|
On October 03 2021 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2021 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really can't expect someone's legacy to be destroyed through them defending their own children. I'm not a fan of royalty in any capacity but this wouldn't leave (and hadn't left) a blip on my radar. You would defend your son if you had overwhelming evidence they participated in sex trafficking?
One would have to define "overwhelming evidence" in this context. Overwhelming evidence necessary to convict in the court of public opinion is one thing, in the courtroom another and in a parent's heart another one altogether. I haven't payed attention to the details of the case, but maybe she believes her son that he didn't do anything.
Plus, yeah, mother thing aside, she's defending her dynasty and she has an obligation to.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 04 2021 04:39 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2021 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2021 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really can't expect someone's legacy to be destroyed through them defending their own children. I'm not a fan of royalty in any capacity but this wouldn't leave (and hadn't left) a blip on my radar. You would defend your son if you had overwhelming evidence they participated in sex trafficking? One would have to define "overwhelming evidence" in this context. Overwhelming evidence necessary to convict in the court of public opinion is one thing, in the courtroom another and in a parent's heart another one altogether. I haven't payed attention to the details of the case, but maybe she believes her son that he didn't do anything. Plus, yeah, mother thing aside, she's defending her dynasty and she has an obligation to.
She absolutely doesn’t have that obligation. It’s an anachronistic institution as it is, one that has really remained largely popular purely down to the Queen being very much/seen very much as a personal embodiment of duty and actual service.
Once the dynasty deviates too far from this well, I’m unsure how long it will last, which very much includes answering pretty serious charges of sexual impropriety.
Although no I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as Mohdoo says, although from what knowledge I have it does sound a credible set of accusations at the very least that deserve an airing in court.
Hey we’re not in the position, so it’s easy to judge. There’s degrees of difference between loving and supporting your kid regardless, believing them, and wielding one’s power to try to prevent kiddo from facing the music on something they may have done.
|
On October 04 2021 04:39 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2021 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2021 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really can't expect someone's legacy to be destroyed through them defending their own children. I'm not a fan of royalty in any capacity but this wouldn't leave (and hadn't left) a blip on my radar. You would defend your son if you had overwhelming evidence they participated in sex trafficking? One would have to define "overwhelming evidence" in this context. Overwhelming evidence necessary to convict in the court of public opinion is one thing, in the courtroom another and in a parent's heart another one altogether. I haven't payed attention to the details of the case, but maybe she believes her son that he didn't do anything. Plus, yeah, mother thing aside, she's defending her dynasty and she has an obligation to.
Can you elaborate on why she has an obligation to defend the dynasty?
|
On October 04 2021 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2021 04:39 Sbrubbles wrote:On October 03 2021 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2021 01:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I really can't expect someone's legacy to be destroyed through them defending their own children. I'm not a fan of royalty in any capacity but this wouldn't leave (and hadn't left) a blip on my radar. You would defend your son if you had overwhelming evidence they participated in sex trafficking? One would have to define "overwhelming evidence" in this context. Overwhelming evidence necessary to convict in the court of public opinion is one thing, in the courtroom another and in a parent's heart another one altogether. I haven't payed attention to the details of the case, but maybe she believes her son that he didn't do anything. Plus, yeah, mother thing aside, she's defending her dynasty and she has an obligation to. Can you elaborate on why she has an obligation to defend the dynasty?
She's the matriarch of a royal family, which is institution set around blood relation that has great symbolic value to many people in the UK. Any scandal that dirties someone in the family dirties the family as a whole, so as the head of the family she has arguably the most legitimacy out of anyone to take action and defend the family name, and if she doesn't then the family suffers for it. Maybe she could have taken an alternative action like completely disowning the guy, but I would say doing nothing is not on the table. Honestly though, this isn't specific to a royal family: a scandal like this to any institution would require action from the people on top.
This isn't a defence of the institution, by the way. The french had some good ideas about what to do with the nobility.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
In some medium thru long term sense the only way you can maintain the legitimacy of an institution that elevates people on birthright is to well, have individuals in said institution be stage managed weirdos who have to sacrifice certain things for said privilege.
In the Royal Family it’s basically being an autonomous human being is sacrificed to be some avatar of the state, and if you do that people, at least now roundly favour the institution for that reason.
What does Elizabeth think about well, anything? What do we know about her aside from enjoying Corgis?
People will, even if you break down the institution, and they agree with you every step of the way still be favourable of the Royals when you subsequently ask via some process of alchemy.
Now if we flip it and rather than 6 decades of service to the state, the privilege is bookended with ‘sauntered about and fucked minors’ it’s a totally different thing.
I think people tolerate the royals because Elizabeth has power and wealth beyond most of our means, but has to sacrifice a lot in the role.
I’m bipolar, broke and perpetually stressed but I wouldn’t trade places with the Queen, absolutely not.
If it’s trading places with an Andrew who doesn’t have to make the sacrifices to the same extent, has fuckloads of connections via his birthright and can basically do whatever the fuck he wants, well. People can and will envy that, and with envy comes a more fundamental questioning of why he has that position. And from there comes a questioning of the wider monarchical framework of which he is a part.
|
David Ames a Conservative parliment member was assassinated less than an hour ago at a constituency meeting. No news on the why so far but a truly shocking day.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
We really do live in a hate filled era.
How horrible.
|
Giving this thread a bump seeing as we are probably going to see the end of Boris Johnson as prime minister soon.
Admitting you’ve been to parties during full lockdown after denying it for 3 months isnt going down well.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On January 12 2022 22:11 Zaros wrote:
Giving this thread a bump seeing as we are probably going to see the end of Boris Johnson as prime minister soon.
Admitting you’ve been to parties during full lockdown after denying it for 3 months isnt going down well.
I wonder who we'll get next.
|
You guys actually think this would finally be the end BoJo? I guess I've lost too much hope to believe that. I think his teflon is too strong and he'll only go when he essentially geta bored of being the PM.
Gove and Truss could run I guess, but would there be any other real candidates that can challenge Sunak?
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On January 12 2022 22:39 Oukka wrote:
You guys actually think this would finally be the end BoJo? I guess I've lost too much hope to believe that. I think his teflon is too strong and he'll only go when he essentially geta bored of being the PM.
Gove and Truss could run I guess, but would there be any other real candidates that can challenge Sunak?
If I'm being completely honest I think the tories have done this deliberately (leaking emails etc.). They are getting rid of Boris because he ain't winning an more elections.
Just so happens the real bad news for the tory party also happened today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037
The government's use of a "VIP lane" to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners claimed the VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials and gave some companies an unfair advantage.
A judge ruled it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment as part of the VIP lane.
But she said both offers were likely to have been given contracts anyway.
The legal action was brought by the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor which claimed the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) unlawfully awarded contracts to supply PPE during the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
But no-one's talking about it.
|
On January 12 2022 22:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 22:39 Oukka wrote:
You guys actually think this would finally be the end BoJo? I guess I've lost too much hope to believe that. I think his teflon is too strong and he'll only go when he essentially geta bored of being the PM.
Gove and Truss could run I guess, but would there be any other real candidates that can challenge Sunak? If I'm being completely honest I think the tories have done this deliberately (leaking emails etc.). They are getting rid of Boris because he ain't winning an more elections. Just so happens the real bad news for the tory party also happened today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037Show nested quote +The government's use of a "VIP lane" to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners claimed the VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials and gave some companies an unfair advantage.
A judge ruled it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment as part of the VIP lane.
But she said both offers were likely to have been given contracts anyway.
The legal action was brought by the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor which claimed the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) unlawfully awarded contracts to supply PPE during the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
But no-one's talking about it.
Why is it such bad news? They got whistled back from some legislation speeding up giving out contracts for PPE, but it doesn't seem like too big a of a deal, if both companies involved would've gotten the contract anyway. They can't do it again, but it's not like they used this for self-enrichment... unlike the case in NL (old news, but still ridiculous): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/08/dutch-to-investigate-business-trios-100m-facemask-deal
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On January 12 2022 22:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 22:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 12 2022 22:39 Oukka wrote:
You guys actually think this would finally be the end BoJo? I guess I've lost too much hope to believe that. I think his teflon is too strong and he'll only go when he essentially geta bored of being the PM.
Gove and Truss could run I guess, but would there be any other real candidates that can challenge Sunak? If I'm being completely honest I think the tories have done this deliberately (leaking emails etc.). They are getting rid of Boris because he ain't winning an more elections. Just so happens the real bad news for the tory party also happened today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037The government's use of a "VIP lane" to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners claimed the VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials and gave some companies an unfair advantage.
A judge ruled it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment as part of the VIP lane.
But she said both offers were likely to have been given contracts anyway.
The legal action was brought by the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor which claimed the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) unlawfully awarded contracts to supply PPE during the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
But no-one's talking about it. Why is it such bad news? They got whistled back from some legislation speeding up giving out contracts for PPE, but it doesn't seem like too big a of a deal, if both companies involved would've gotten the contract anyway. They can't do it again, but it's not like they used this for self-enrichment... unlike the case in NL (old news, but still ridiculous): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/08/dutch-to-investigate-business-trios-100m-facemask-deal
I’m unsure why this was the one that made it to court, there’s plenty of others seemed more egregious.
Private Eye have done a good job tracking where and who got the money from PPE deals, and to my knowledge they haven’t got sued yet.
Ultimately you had companies with no experience, in some cases without the manufacturing capability to make PPE getting awarded hefty fast tracked contracts to do that, other companies that either already produced it, or produced similar goods stuck waiting approval.
Between spaffing away of money to those with connections, the utter failure of track and trace and much more besides, the incompetence and corruption of the Tories has been rather laid bare.
For whatever reason people seem considerably more pissed off that Boris went to a party rather than well, the other stuff.
Which to a degree I understand, equally it’s a much more minor failing in practical terms than the other stuff.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On January 12 2022 22:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 22:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 12 2022 22:39 Oukka wrote:
You guys actually think this would finally be the end BoJo? I guess I've lost too much hope to believe that. I think his teflon is too strong and he'll only go when he essentially geta bored of being the PM.
Gove and Truss could run I guess, but would there be any other real candidates that can challenge Sunak? If I'm being completely honest I think the tories have done this deliberately (leaking emails etc.). They are getting rid of Boris because he ain't winning an more elections. Just so happens the real bad news for the tory party also happened today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59968037The government's use of a "VIP lane" to award contracts for personal protective equipment (PPE) to two companies was unlawful, the High Court has ruled.
Campaigners claimed the VIP lane was reserved for referrals from MPs, ministers and senior officials and gave some companies an unfair advantage.
A judge ruled it was unlawful to give the two companies preferential treatment as part of the VIP lane.
But she said both offers were likely to have been given contracts anyway.
The legal action was brought by the Good Law Project and EveryDoctor which claimed the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) unlawfully awarded contracts to supply PPE during the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
But no-one's talking about it. Why is it such bad news? They got whistled back from some legislation speeding up giving out contracts for PPE, but it doesn't seem like too big a of a deal, if both companies involved would've gotten the contract anyway. They can't do it again, but it's not like they used this for self-enrichment... unlike the case in NL (old news, but still ridiculous): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/08/dutch-to-investigate-business-trios-100m-facemask-deal
The point is that Boris looks bad and always will. They want to bury news that makes the whole tory operation look bad. Its not a massive conspiracy, just controlling the timing of Boris' downfall.
|
The topic of Brexit came up in the US pol thread. From everything I am reading, Brexit is going 100x worse than it was advertised. Are there any major politicians who are saying "Yes, Brexit is going well"? Has public opinion drifted similar to the US Iraq war? Lots of people supported it but it is pretty widely viewed as a mistake in retrospect?
|
I wouldn't say that it is viewed a mistake by its political proponents. Although admitting a mistake is not really something many hyper-partisan politicians tend to do.
Imo, the classic brexiteers are happy that it's been done and they have back control. Some brighter heads are frustrated with Boris Johnson being incapable of doing his job as Prime Minister and thus stopping a unified approach across all departments re: using the control taken back to improve things according to their political tastes.
For the average Joe, and this is my rather uneducated opinion as a foreigner mostly consuming the Guardian and BBC Radio Scotland, it's been a fucking desaster of a shitshow. So many substantial promises that were to positively affect the lives of people going up in smoke. Instead they got prices spiking, increased fuel poverty, local supply shortages, horrible custom delays and a foreign worker shortage.
And, worst of all, still the same government of corrupt tories.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On January 14 2022 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:
The topic of Brexit came up in the US pol thread. From everything I am reading, Brexit is going 100x worse than it was advertised. Are there any major politicians who are saying "Yes, Brexit is going well"? Has public opinion drifted similar to the US Iraq war? Lots of people supported it but it is pretty widely viewed as a mistake in retrospect?
‘it's been a fucking desaster of a shitshow’ basically covers it.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On January 14 2022 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:
The topic of Brexit came up in the US pol thread. From everything I am reading, Brexit is going 100x worse than it was advertised. Are there any major politicians who are saying "Yes, Brexit is going well"? Has public opinion drifted similar to the US Iraq war? Lots of people supported it but it is pretty widely viewed as a mistake in retrospect?
‘it's been a fucking desaster of a shitshow’ basically covers it.
You’ve seen some kind of shift, but less than you’d think.
For one, you had a fair amount of broadly pro EU people who didn’t come out and vote. Their stance has only shifted to the degree that they wish they had.
‘So many substantial promises that were to positively affect the lives of people going up in smoke. Instead they got prices spiking, increased fuel poverty, local supply shortages, horrible custom delays and a foreign worker shortage.’
You’ve probably seen some movement from the moderately anti-EU folks, or those who were sitting on the fence. Because of those factors.
Amongst the more hardline Brexit crew, not so much. These problems were predicted way in advance, and were dismissed as fearmongering. Now they’re actually happening they’re attributed to other factors, either Covid, or the EU being ‘unreasonable’, and not you know, consequences of leaving the EU.
Ultimately you have a lot of people who are illiterate over the considerable amount of different moving parts in a pan European trade zone, basic economic principles and how logistic chains work.
The UK will prosper because the UK is great was the emotional underpinning argument for many proponents for editing, and it still is today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
