Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov finds Leave voters taking a more lenient view of Prince

135

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    I voted Leave.

    I would have no problem with Prince Andrew sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein.

    What stories they could swap, eh?

    Today I learned that Harvey Weinstein has deformed genitals, said genitals were photographed and shown to the jury.

    I really wish I hadn't read that.
    The PMs doctor during the “headless man” incident had the job of inspecting the genitals of all members of the cabinet to identify who was the responsible party
    Family member, was it ... ?
    No, but my mentor was inspected
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    Quite. The Sussexes are clearly being advised by a bunch of American PRs and lawyers who don’t have a clue about how their constant ‘statements’ look to the British public - which is to be arguing directly with HMQ.

    I think HM was happy to let them go their own way, as for example Beatrice and Eugenie have done, but once it became clear that their plan for ‘employment’ was “Brand SussexRoyal” she quickly put a stop to it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    That’s a bloody brilliant answer to the question.

    Let’s hope that, as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, he similarly avoids asking such banal questions to the government benches.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    I saw one of those adverts this morning. Perhaps the calculation is that London remainers would vote for independence to get back into the EU.
    Half the regular users of the London underground will be Leave voting Home counties Tory commuters
    I don’t think that many pensioners work.
    I didn't think that there are many home counties pensioners. Very many move away from London to cash in. Downsizing from 4 to 2 or 3 bedrooms and to an area where the houses are much cheaper and have lower council tax.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is fair for the UK to have to comply with the same regulatory requirements Japan and Canada had to for their FTAs and that have been proposed to the US by the EU but no more
    Well, almost all FTAs contain provisions about not using - for example - product standards as a way of discriminating against imports. So, if we sign up to those, we won't have control of our laws - but it's no more severe than in other FTAs.
    Regaining control of our borders and doing our own trade deals is the main thing, we can then diverge away in terms of other regulations as far as standard FTAs allow but should not have to align further than is required by standard FTAs
    But what's a standard FTA?

    At the one end you have EFTA/EEA (which, by the way allows your own trade deals), but doesn't allow really any product standards deviance (outside agriculture).

    NAFTA/USMCA allows slightly more deviance in product standards, but contains provisions that disallow discrimination against LBGT in the workplace (Justin Trudeau managed to sneak that one in because Trump was so desperate to claim victory).

    The majority of FTAs between developed countries include provisions on state aid. So you can't subsidise a business that then sells into another country putting people out of work there.

    And in a minority of FTAs, there are provisions about allowing foreign countries access to service markets and exemptions to domestic legislation regarding ownership rules.

    I think we're going to be very keen on the last of these, but to get it, we're probably going to have to make concessions in other areas.
    None of those are a problem and the EU isn't asking for those things. The government is clearly happy to sign up to fixed in time baseline standards. The EU are asking for a self-correcting mechanism that corrects to their standarsa in perpetuity. That isn't any kind of acceptable compromise and tbh, I'd actually prefer the no deal outcome than anytbing where the UK is bound by EU rules that have yet to be written.
  • Sandpit said:

    That’s a bloody brilliant answer to the question.

    Let’s hope that, as Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, he similarly avoids asking such banal questions to the government benches.
    Best thing I've heard in this dismal leadership contest. Is sanity about to return to the opposition benches? We could do with it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is fair for the UK to have to comply with the same regulatory requirements Japan and Canada had to for their FTAs and that have been proposed to the US by the EU but no more
    Well, almost all FTAs contain provisions about not using - for example - product standards as a way of discriminating against imports. So, if we sign up to those, we won't have control of our laws - but it's no more severe than in other FTAs.
    Regaining control of our borders and doing our own trade deals is the main thing, we can then diverge away in terms of other regulations as far as standard FTAs allow but should not have to align further than is required by standard FTAs
    But what's a standard FTA?

    At the one end you have EFTA/EEA (which, by the way allows your own trade deals), but doesn't allow really any product standards deviance (outside agriculture).

    NAFTA/USMCA allows slightly more deviance in product standards, but contains provisions that disallow discrimination against LBGT in the workplace (Justin Trudeau managed to sneak that one in because Trump was so desperate to claim victory).

    The majority of FTAs between developed countries include provisions on state aid. So you can't subsidise a business that then sells into another country putting people out of work there.

    And in a minority of FTAs, there are provisions about allowing foreign countries access to service markets and exemptions to domestic legislation regarding ownership rules.

    I think we're going to be very keen on the last of these, but to get it, we're probably going to have to make concessions in other areas.
    None of those are a problem and the EU isn't asking for those things. The government is clearly happy to sign up to fixed in time baseline standards. The EU are asking for a self-correcting mechanism that corrects to their standarsa in perpetuity. That isn't any kind of acceptable compromise and tbh, I'd actually prefer the no deal outcome than anytbing where the UK is bound by EU rules that have yet to be written.
    I agree.

    My annoyance is that any and all treaties tie one's hands. That's the nature of a treaty. You're agreeing not to do certain things and to do other things. You can no longer pass laws at will, because they may conflict with your treaty obligations.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is fair for the UK to have to comply with the same regulatory requirements Japan and Canada had to for their FTAs and that have been proposed to the US by the EU but no more
    Well, almost all FTAs contain provisions about not using - for example - product standards as a way of discriminating against imports. So, if we sign up to those, we won't have control of our laws - but it's no more severe than in other FTAs.
    Regaining control of our borders and doing our own trade deals is the main thing, we can then diverge away in terms of other regulations as far as standard FTAs allow but should not have to align further than is required by standard FTAs
    But what's a standard FTA?

    At the one end you have EFTA/EEA (which, by the way allows your own trade deals), but doesn't allow really any product standards deviance (outside agriculture).

    NAFTA/USMCA allows slightly more deviance in product standards, but contains provisions that disallow discrimination against LBGT in the workplace (Justin Trudeau managed to sneak that one in because Trump was so desperate to claim victory).

    The majority of FTAs between developed countries include provisions on state aid. So you can't subsidise a business that then sells into another country putting people out of work there.

    And in a minority of FTAs, there are provisions about allowing foreign countries access to service markets and exemptions to domestic legislation regarding ownership rules.

    I think we're going to be very keen on the last of these, but to get it, we're probably going to have to make concessions in other areas.
    None of those are a problem and the EU isn't asking for those things. The government is clearly happy to sign up to fixed in time baseline standards. The EU are asking for a self-correcting mechanism that corrects to their standarsa in perpetuity. That isn't any kind of acceptable compromise and tbh, I'd actually prefer the no deal outcome than anytbing where the UK is bound by EU rules that have yet to be written.
    Especially given the EU’s comments on making the UK ‘suffer’ from Brexit, one might imagine that these to-be-written rules all include a deliberate ‘F*** Britian’ clause.
  • MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think it is fair for the UK to have to comply with the same regulatory requirements Japan and Canada had to for their FTAs and that have been proposed to the US by the EU but no more
    Well, almost all FTAs contain provisions about not using - for example - product standards as a way of discriminating against imports. So, if we sign up to those, we won't have control of our laws - but it's no more severe than in other FTAs.
    Regaining control of our borders and doing our own trade deals is the main thing, we can then diverge away in terms of other regulations as far as standard FTAs allow but should not have to align further than is required by standard FTAs
    But what's a standard FTA?

    At the one end you have EFTA/EEA (which, by the way allows your own trade deals), but doesn't allow really any product standards deviance (outside agriculture).

    NAFTA/USMCA allows slightly more deviance in product standards, but contains provisions that disallow discrimination against LBGT in the workplace (Justin Trudeau managed to sneak that one in because Trump was so desperate to claim victory).

    The majority of FTAs between developed countries include provisions on state aid. So you can't subsidise a business that then sells into another country putting people out of work there.

    And in a minority of FTAs, there are provisions about allowing foreign countries access to service markets and exemptions to domestic legislation regarding ownership rules.

    I think we're going to be very keen on the last of these, but to get it, we're probably going to have to make concessions in other areas.
    None of those are a problem and the EU isn't asking for those things. The government is clearly happy to sign up to fixed in time baseline standards. The EU are asking for a self-correcting mechanism that corrects to their standarsa in perpetuity. That isn't any kind of acceptable compromise and tbh, I'd actually prefer the no deal outcome than anytbing where the UK is bound by EU rules that have yet to be written.
    Well said! Agreeing fixed rules in advance and sticking to them is one thing. Being forced to adopt laws that you haven't had a say in, in perpetuity, is an entirely different matter. Its colonialism.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    The worst was that deeply legalistic statement that the Queen doesn’t own the word “royal” and Meghan would jolly well use it if she wanted but had chosen not to because she was a superior type of person
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
  • That is an excellent answer and full marks to him
  • rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    None of those are a problem and the EU isn't asking for those things. The government is clearly happy to sign up to fixed in time baseline standards. The EU are asking for a self-correcting mechanism that corrects to their standarsa in perpetuity. That isn't any kind of acceptable compromise and tbh, I'd actually prefer the no deal outcome than anytbing where the UK is bound by EU rules that have yet to be written.

    I agree.

    My annoyance is that any and all treaties tie one's hands. That's the nature of a treaty. You're agreeing not to do certain things and to do other things. You can no longer pass laws at will, because they may conflict with your treaty obligations.
    Tying your hands with something you've agreed to be tied to, so long as you have an exit mechanism in case future generations want out, is entirely reasonable. You've chosen those rules.

    Being tied to someone else so that if they change their rules you have to move in lockstep without a say - that's an entirely different matter!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    I voted Leave.

    I would have no problem with Prince Andrew sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein.

    What stories they could swap, eh?

    Today I learned that Harvey Weinstein has deformed genitals, said genitals were photographed and shown to the jury.

    I really wish I hadn't read that.
    The PMs doctor during the “headless man” incident had the job of inspecting the genitals of all members of the cabinet to identify who was the responsible party
    Family member, was it ... ?
    No, but my mentor was inspected
    Never heard it called that.

    But surely you’re not that old ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:



    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.
  • Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    The worst was that deeply legalistic statement that the Queen doesn’t own the word “royal” and Meghan would jolly well use it if she wanted but had chosen not to because she was a superior type of person
    Is she wrong?

    I thought the whole point of a monarchy and a feudal system was that its not a dictatorship and dukes etc can do their own thing? Historically I think for most centuries of our history would back Meghan there.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    I agree completely with the points raised, but literally anyone except Gina Miller would do a much better job of it. Having another lawyer from the same chambers front the comments would have got a much better hearing from government, rather than someone who is seen by many as a professional obstructionist.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    Agreed.
    But some people have decided she is no longer to be listened to, even if she’s making a fair point...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    The worst was that deeply legalistic statement that the Queen doesn’t own the word “royal” and Meghan would jolly well use it if she wanted but had chosen not to because she was a superior type of person
    Not just legalistic but wrong in law also given (a) the fact that HMQ is Queen of 15 other countries; and (b) the Paris Convention.

    And spiteful too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2020
    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    Agreed.
    But some people have decided she is no longer to be listened to, even if she’s making a fair point...
    More fools them. An ineffective financial regulator and a less than brilliant central bank Governor are just what we need as we embark on life outside the EU.
  • ydoethur said:
    How will Johnson react to facing a grown-up across the dispatch box? Presumably he'll find as many ways as possible to avoid it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    The worst was that deeply legalistic statement that the Queen doesn’t own the word “royal” and Meghan would jolly well use it if she wanted but had chosen not to because she was a superior type of person
    At this point, it’s probably only a matter of time until the press (either in the US or UK) start running all the Meghan stories they’ve been sitting on - of which there are many, if one believes the ‘blind gossip’ columns which have been been proved very much right in recent years.
  • As with previous posts, that is an excellent answer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    Agreed.
    But some people have decided she is no longer to be listened to, even if she’s making a fair point...
    More fools them. An ineffective financial regulator and a less than brilliant central bank Governor are just what we need as we embark on life outside the EU.
    That’s why I said earlier it would be an interesting test for the new chair of the Treasury select committee.
  • Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:
    How will Johnson react to facing a grown-up across the dispatch box? Presumably he'll find as many ways as possible to avoid it.
    With babbling and mostly vacuous incoherence.

    For the simple reason that’s how he always reacts.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    I agree completely with the points raised, but literally anyone except Gina Miller would do a much better job of it. Having another lawyer from the same chambers front the comments would have got a much better hearing from government, rather than someone who is seen by many as a professional obstructionist.
    I am happy to offer my services. :smile:
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    IanB2 said:

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
    I am glad that I cashed out a few weeks back, and will keep out for present. I expect the peak of Coronavirus will be 7-10 weeks away, and more market shocks as more countries get outbreaks.

    The only thing that I am buying is life insurance, and I am not kidding on that!

  • Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    I don't know and I quite frankly don't care. I'm not in the business of sticking my nose into other families dramas, considering he wasn't invited to the wedding there's clearly some history there and it should be left at that. Its none of our business.
  • TGOHF666 said:

    Charles said:


    That you are looking for it to be bad. It’s not been as bad as I expected - no disasters to dare

    What on earth do you mean, 'no disasters'? Mislaying a Chancellor just a few weeks before the budget. Getting into a major row with the civil service. Threatening to renege on treaty commitments. Lying about the Irish protocol. Deliberately making it impossible for businesses to prepare for post-phoney-war Brexit. Putting their hands over their ears when the CBI, NFU and many others make very sensible points.

    True, not much of the consequences of this has actually hit the fan yet, but in the very short time it has been in office. its record is, as I said, looking to be the worst of the last 50 years.

    Maybe I'll be wrong, and Boris will do a major u-turn as he did on the WA. We have to hope that it's all meaningless bluster and he actually intends to agree to whatever the EU proposes by the summer, which is the effective deadline.
    Richard - a long list of items that voters support or don’t give a toss about.

    Some vested interests are squealing - not many voters will complain

    I’d have thought someone as thoughtful as you would have learned from recent events - the game has changed.

    Buttering up the civil service and Sir Bufton from the CBI are what did for Mrs May.

    Voters may not be bothered because right now there are no consequences. Let's see what happens if the government reneges on the Withdrawl Agreement and how people react to what that leads to.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    IanB2 said:

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
    Yes I agree.

    Another few thousand points to come off methinks
  • Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    I don't know and I quite frankly don't care. I'm not in the business of sticking my nose into other families dramas, considering he wasn't invited to the wedding there's clearly some history there and it should be left at that. Its none of our business.
    Does it not occur to you that she might not be as angelic you make her out to be?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
    I am glad that I cashed out a few weeks back, and will keep out for present. I expect the peak of Coronavirus will be 7-10 weeks away, and more market shocks as more countries get outbreaks.

    The only thing that I am buying is life insurance, and I am not kidding on that!

    So long as the insurance company doesn’t go broke before you get to claim.... ;)
  • ydoethur said:
    How will Johnson react to facing a grown-up across the dispatch box? Presumably he'll find as many ways as possible to avoid it.
    It will be very interesting
  • Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    I don't know and I quite frankly don't care. I'm not in the business of sticking my nose into other families dramas, considering he wasn't invited to the wedding there's clearly some history there and it should be left at that. Its none of our business.
    Does it not occur to you that she might not be as angelic you make her out to be?
    I'm not making her out to be an angel. When have I said she's an angel?

    She's entitled to want a private life and so is her husband. And if that's what they as a couple decide I respect them 100% - and the idea she is some siren who is "callously manipulating" her husband is the most disgusting misogyny.

    Any couple has a right to decide how they want to live and a husband who thinks his wife is chattel whose opinions should be ignored does not belong in this century let alone deserve respect.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Re this FPT

    Campaigners led by Gina Miller are demanding the chancellor launch an independent review into Andrew Bailey’s appointment as Bank of England governor, saying his tenure at the Financial Conduct Authority was characterised by a “toxic cocktail of negligence, incompetence and indifference” that allowed a string of financial scandals to go unchecked.

    The group has written to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the head of the Treasury select committee, Conservative MP Mel Stride, saying Bailey must answer questions over scandals that wiped out the savings of small investors during his watch as the chief executive of the City regulator.


    Gina has a point. Bailey’s tenure at the FCA was a bit ho-hum. See here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/beams-and-motes/ - and here - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/inquiring-minds/.

    She may well have a point, but she would have been miles better off getting someone else to make it.
    Like who? The official opposition - currently asleep at the wheel? Some Tory MPs with a spine and concern for good governance at our financial regulators, maybe? And who might those be?

    She’s in the sector. This stuff needs raising. I might also add the FCA’s utterly feeble response to the behaviour by Jess Staley, Barclay’s CEO, to out a whistleblower - and now look he’s under fire for his links to Epstein and, possibly, lying to the Board and/or the FCA about this. I’ve been raising this stuff for ages on my work blog - but no-one is going to listen to me. So if no-one else is going to do it, good on Gina for doing so.

    (And, incidentally the role of Sunak’s then employer in the RBS/ABN AMRO fiasco should be looked at too.)
    I agree completely with the points raised, but literally anyone except Gina Miller would do a much better job of it. Having another lawyer from the same chambers front the comments would have got a much better hearing from government, rather than someone who is seen by many as a professional obstructionist.
    I am happy to offer my services. :smile:
    Hell yeah! :+1:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    I voted Leave.

    I would have no problem with Prince Andrew sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein.

    What stories they could swap, eh?

    Today I learned that Harvey Weinstein has deformed genitals, said genitals were photographed and shown to the jury.

    I really wish I hadn't read that.
    The PMs doctor during the “headless man” incident had the job of inspecting the genitals of all members of the cabinet to identify who was the responsible party
    Family member, was it ... ?
    No, but my mentor was inspected
    Never heard it called that.

    But surely you’re not that old ?
    He didn’t become my mentor until after he’d retired from government but during my teens tutored me In law, politics, theology, philosophy, history and Latin. All the things a young man needs to learn...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    That is a good answer, and while politicians are not one's to throw stones in a doing or saying ridiculous things contest with the media, fair play for not playing that particular game at least.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    HMQ has not gone after his wife. Quite the opposite. Why then did Harry put out a statement saying “nah, nah, we can do what we want, you don’t define royalty” when he is a minor royal who hates it and his grandmother is someone who has given over 70 years of service? Quite unnecessary.

    He is right to want to protect his family. He is not going to achieve this by giving the impression that he wants to have the last word on everything, is doing everyone else a favour and is more bothered by his loss of status than someone wanting a private life really ought to be.

    He’d be wise to shut up for a long time, concentrate on his family and use his talents for worthwhile charitable work.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    Some people get a bit overexcited at the merest whiff of wider royal troubles.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    A very good answer by Starmer. More of this from him, please.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    HMQ has not gone after his wife. Quite the opposite. Why then did Harry put out a statement saying “nah, nah, we can do what we want, you don’t define royalty” when he is a minor royal who hates it and his grandmother is someone who has given over 70 years of service? Quite unnecessary.

    He is right to want to protect his family. He is not going to achieve this by giving the impression that he wants to have the last word on everything, is doing everyone else a favour and is more bothered by his loss of status than someone wanting a private life really ought to be.

    He’d be wise to shut up for a long time, concentrate on his family and use his talents for worthwhile charitable work.
    Quite. This is an area where people are making things unnecessarily convoluted or meaningul in my opinion. His priorities have changed and he has choices to make as a result - the simplest solutions may require harder choices than he or others would like, but the whole affair seems to have been gone about on all sides in a practical and transactional manner so it should be treated that way and he can easily end up being able to live the life he wants, or at least closer to it than he had. It's not that complicated.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723
    dr_spyn said:

    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).

    Most people will vote in next couple of days.

    I voted for Nandy and Butler as 1st preferences.

    Neither will win but hey ho.
  • kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    Some people get a bit overexcited at the merest whiff of wider royal troubles.
    "My Monarchy, right or wrong!" :lol:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    Is this based on any inside knowledge? 😏
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    Why is that our business?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    I didn't have you down as a member of the parasite class, Comrade!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    IanB2 said:

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
    Yes I agree.

    Another few thousand points to come off methinks
    Even though most of the chartist stuff is nonsense, it is true that you tend to get resistance at the round number points. This evening the market is dicking about just above the 27,000 level, and I’d be surprised if this is breached until tomorrow unless there is some breaking news on the killer virus. Looking further ahead there would be a lot of resistance at the 24,000 level that was typical of 2016-2017, and that’s my stab at the medium term bottom. Unless the SeanT apocalypse comes to pass, of course, in which case all bets are off.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    Is this based on any inside knowledge? 😏
    My wife is from LA
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    I don't know and I quite frankly don't care. I'm not in the business of sticking my nose into other families dramas, considering he wasn't invited to the wedding there's clearly some history there and it should be left at that. Its none of our business.
    Does it not occur to you that she might not be as angelic you make her out to be?
    And if that is so how does it mean it matters why she and her father have issues? We're hardly likely to ever be in a position to form a judgement on if it was reasonable or not, and shouldn't anyway.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:



    I agree.

    My annoyance is that any and all treaties tie one's hands. That's the nature of a treaty. You're agreeing not to do certain things and to do other things. You can no longer pass laws at will, because they may conflict with your treaty obligations.

    Yes, and that's a fair compromise for tariff free trade. If there are minimum standards commitments that mean neither can no longer use dirty coal power without an arbitration process and tariff penalties on steel and other industries that would benefit from cheap coal power etc... that's absolutely within expectations. If a similar provision wasn't part of the trade agreement and then the EU unilaterally introduced it and then acted as judge and jury for implementation and had a 90 day resolution time as they do with equivalence then it's clearly not in our interests to sign up to such a deal.
  • kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    Why is that our business?
    Given that her dad has only just been recovering from heart surgery, is it not unnecessarily cruel?

    I mean, how many PBers have prevented their own father seeing their grandchild(ren)?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    Why has she prevented her father from seeing baby Archie?
    I don't know and I quite frankly don't care. I'm not in the business of sticking my nose into other families dramas, considering he wasn't invited to the wedding there's clearly some history there and it should be left at that. Its none of our business.
    Does it not occur to you that she might not be as angelic you make her out to be?
    I'm not making her out to be an angel. When have I said she's an angel?

    She's entitled to want a private life and so is her husband. And if that's what they as a couple decide I respect them 100% - and the idea she is some siren who is "callously manipulating" her husband is the most disgusting misogyny.

    Any couple has a right to decide how they want to live and a husband who thinks his wife is chattel whose opinions should be ignored does not belong in this century let alone deserve respect.
    The whole problem stems from the fact that she doesn’t want a private life - she wants a very public life, trading heavily on her new family’s name and connections.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Curious that the Queen has been harsher on the Sussexes than she has on her favorite child, the friend of the nonce.

    You keep making this point and, with all due respect, it’s nonsense. HMQ has not been harsh with the Sussexes, who chose to leave the country and stop being working royals and who have not lost their titles. She made a notably warm statement about Meghan when agreement was reached, something which has not been reciprocated but rather thrown back in her face.

    Andrew has been retired, not promoted to Admiral as is apparently normal (I know, I don’t understand it either), kept off official Palace guest lists, lost some of his patronages, lost his Palace office and had his birthday party cancelled. Nor do you know what has been said in private. Mothers often have to deal with wayward sons and they will, believe me, be both furious and still want to hold out a hand to try and keep the relationship going.

    Andrew is an arrogant, entitled and rather dim-witted arse with very poor judgment but, so far, has not been charged with anything.

    Being arrogant, entitled and having poor judgment are charges which could, quite frankly, be laid against the Duke of Sussex based on the last few months.
    Some people get a bit overexcited at the merest whiff of wider royal troubles.
    "My Monarchy, right or wrong!" :lol:
    No, when it's wrong, there must be action. But blowing up every little thing, or equating things that are not actually that equatable, is a classic way of undermining legitimate raising and resolving of problems.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    And on FCA matters - another one to add to Gina’s little list - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/financial-conduct-authority-in-new-data-breach-blunder-67fhkzxdp.

    The government is currently advertising for a new FCA CEO, btw.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    lighter = less fuel usage. Isn't that a good thing? :smiley:
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    "YouGov finds Leave voters taking a more lenient view of Prince Andrew than Remainers"

    Both as bad as each other to me!
  • Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    HMQ has not gone after his wife. Quite the opposite. Why then did Harry put out a statement saying “nah, nah, we can do what we want, you don’t define royalty” when he is a minor royal who hates it and his grandmother is someone who has given over 70 years of service? Quite unnecessary.

    He is right to want to protect his family. He is not going to achieve this by giving the impression that he wants to have the last word on everything, is doing everyone else a favour and is more bothered by his loss of status than someone wanting a private life really ought to be.

    He’d be wise to shut up for a long time, concentrate on his family and use his talents for worthwhile charitable work.
    Whether Harry has made a mistake or not is not my point, if he's made mistakes then he has made the mistake and its his free choice to do so. He's not some incapable man whose been led astray by some evil siren.

    Some people seem to act like Harry's number one duty is to HMQ and everything else is secondary. That's nonsense IMO. HMQ has plenty of people concerned about her. While a grandchild should respect his or her grandparents, any husband's number one concern should be his own wife and children before his grandparents - and vice-versa.

    I hope for everyone's sake both of them do shut up once this is done - and they are left alone.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    dr_spyn said:

    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).

    Actually, the thing I like about it from a political point of view (leaving aside the sheer good sense in it) is that it’s a passionate answer. It shows some of the fire and energy that so far I would have said has been noticeably lacking in his career.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    Is this based on any inside knowledge? 😏
    My wife is from LA
    Ah.

    Dinner party gossip / hearsay or more?
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited February 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    And on FCA matters - another one to add to Gina’s little list - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/financial-conduct-authority-in-new-data-breach-blunder-67fhkzxdp.

    The government is currently advertising for a new FCA CEO, btw.

    Please tell us you are going to apply for the job?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    dr_spyn said:

    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).

    Most people will vote in next couple of days.

    I voted for Nandy and Butler as 1st preferences.

    Neither will win but hey ho.
    Butler???

    I couldn't separate her and Burgon so didn't award either my 4th preference. Dr Rosena for me.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
    Proper trains now on Trans-Pennine Express. Plus the Azumas on LNER.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    dr_spyn said:

    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).

    Most people will vote in next couple of days.

    I voted for Nandy and Butler as 1st preferences.

    Neither will win but hey ho.
    Butler???

    I couldn't separate her and Burgon so didn't award either my 4th preference. Dr Rosena for me.
    Out of curiosity, what a would happen if you voted 1, 2, 4, leaving 3 out? Would it be a spoiled ballot, would they count the blank space as three, or would they just count 1 and 2?
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
    Proper trains now on Trans-Pennine Express. Plus the Azumas on LNER.
    The Class 397s on TPE? Yes I saw a couple at Glasgow a few weeks back. Built by Spanish firm CAF.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    And on FCA matters - another one to add to Gina’s little list - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/financial-conduct-authority-in-new-data-breach-blunder-67fhkzxdp.

    The government is currently advertising for a new FCA CEO, btw.

    Please tell us you are going to apply.
    I would not make the short list.

    I don’t think I could bear to commute again.

    It will be an internal appointment. It usually is. They don’t really want a breath of fresh air and I would be far more disruptive - but in a good way - than self-appointed disrupters like Cummings.

    And anyone appointed externally will have all the people internally who wanted the job trying to stick knives in their back. The internal politics there are peculiar and difficult.

    I am enjoying the transition to my new life in Cumbria too much.

    I don’t need the stress.

    I would not be able to post on or write thread headers for PB!

    I would love to contribute in some way but full-time work at one job (unless I suffer a financial catastrophe) is not for me now.


    That said, freelance work is a bit thin at the moment, so maybe .....
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:

    A thoughtful answer from Keir Starmer. It cannot be easy coping with a sudden loss and this damnably long series of hustings (only 40 days to go).

    Most people will vote in next couple of days.

    I voted for Nandy and Butler as 1st preferences.

    Neither will win but hey ho.
    Butler???

    I couldn't separate her and Burgon so didn't award either my 4th preference. Dr Rosena for me.
    Out of curiosity, what a would happen if you voted 1, 2, 4, leaving 3 out? Would it be a spoiled ballot, would they count the blank space as three, or would they just count 1 and 2?
    That wouldn't be possible with online voting but presumably you could do it if you are one of those without a registered email address who will receive a paper ballot. They also have the chance to draw a cock and balls next to Burgon's name.

    In the scenario you describe I have no idea if the 4th preference would count as a third preference. One for TSE, our resident AV expert...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    There’s one hell of an assumption you have there in your last sentence, given the state of royal marriages these days.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    That's William's problem, not Harry's, if that happens. Harry doesn't have a duty to his brother. This is 2020 not 1020.

    Maybe, just maybe, when Harry says he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this drama . . . maybe he's not being manipulated by some evil shrew, maybe he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this mother. Maybe he's a free adult able to make his own free choices.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    They won't be together by then.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
    Proper trains now on Trans-Pennine Express. Plus the Azumas on LNER.
    The Class 397s on TPE? Yes I saw a couple at Glasgow a few weeks back. Built by Spanish firm CAF.
    Not that plastic tat! I'm talking about the Cats - Class 68s.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dow down over 900 pts again today. Down 2400 in 3.5 days.

    Think i will invest at 20000

    The market has a more panicky feel about it this evening. Unlike yesterday, which was one long steady sink, we’re starting to get the short term swings that indicate the traders and computer programs are trying to make a turn, and some people are fishing for the bottom. I’m up nearly £4K since I posted here before market open yesterday, and am, as last night, taking some profits in the run up to Wall Street close. But I still think by Friday, current markets will seem high, looking back.
    I am glad that I cashed out a few weeks back, and will keep out for present. I expect the peak of Coronavirus will be 7-10 weeks away, and more market shocks as more countries get outbreaks.

    The only thing that I am buying is life insurance, and I am not kidding on that!

    So long as the insurance company doesn’t go broke before you get to claim.... ;)
    That's why I went with HSBC. I reckon they can stand it better than most.

    If it becomes pandemic, then based upon the infection rates of medical staff in Korea and Italy, I think I am quite likely to catch it despite PPE of a higher standard.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    They won't be together by then.
    People said that about Wallis Simpson in 1936. It should be noted that they were entirely wrong.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    And on FCA matters - another one to add to Gina’s little list - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/financial-conduct-authority-in-new-data-breach-blunder-67fhkzxdp.

    The government is currently advertising for a new FCA CEO, btw.

    Please tell us you are going to apply.
    I would not make the short list.

    I don’t think I could bear to commute again.

    It will be an internal appointment. It usually is. They don’t really want a breath of fresh air and I would be far more disruptive - but in a good way - than self-appointed disrupters like Cummings.

    And anyone appointed externally will have all the people internally who wanted the job trying to stick knives in their back. The internal politics there are peculiar and difficult.

    I am enjoying the transition to my new life in Cumbria too much.

    I don’t need the stress.

    I would not be able to post on or write thread headers for PB!

    I would love to contribute in some way but full-time work at one job (unless I suffer a financial catastrophe) is not for me now.


    That said, freelance work is a bit thin at the moment, so maybe .....
    On the contrary:

    The new IR35 is killing professional freelance work in the UK at the moment.

    Such work will end up having to be very short term, from lectures and conferences rather than spending time in companies sorting them out.

    The role almost certainly comes with a CBE a couple of years down the line “For Services to Rooting Out Evil Bankers”, as well as a nice government pension that will see you earn more in retirement than you ever did in their employment.

    You know you should,,, ;)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    A thread on why the US isn’t conducting many coronavirus tests (regulatory inertia):
    https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1224042220665307137
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    That's William's problem, not Harry's, if that happens. Harry doesn't have a duty to his brother. This is 2020 not 1020.

    Maybe, just maybe, when Harry says he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this drama . . . maybe he's not being manipulated by some evil shrew, maybe he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this mother. Maybe he's a free adult able to make his own free choices.
    Everything you write may be correct but it only addresses one issue: Harry's current fears and feelings. Other people can see where it might lead and they have reacted accordingly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    They won't be together by then.
    People said that about Wallis Simpson in 1936. It should be noted that they were entirely wrong.
    I am puzzled by this sudden mass outbreak of expertise on the subject of other people’s marriages.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    Is this based on any inside knowledge? 😏
    My wife is from LA
    Ah.

    Dinner party gossip / hearsay or more?
    More than gossip but not proveable fact
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    That's William's problem, not Harry's, if that happens. Harry doesn't have a duty to his brother. This is 2020 not 1020.

    Maybe, just maybe, when Harry says he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this drama . . . maybe he's not being manipulated by some evil shrew, maybe he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this mother. Maybe he's a free adult able to make his own free choices.
    Which would all be fine if they wished to withdraw from public life and live quietly in peace - rather than clearly seeking to end up on the Hollywood ‘celebrity’ circuit making a living from their Royal connections.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    That's William's problem, not Harry's, if that happens. Harry doesn't have a duty to his brother. This is 2020 not 1020.

    Maybe, just maybe, when Harry says he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this drama . . . maybe he's not being manipulated by some evil shrew, maybe he saw his mother get killed and he doesn't want this mother. Maybe he's a free adult able to make his own free choices.
    Everything you write may be correct but it only addresses one issue: Harry's current fears and feelings. Other people can see where it might lead and they have reacted accordingly.
    Other people aren't him. Its his life, his choice.

    Pretentious people who think they get a say in how he lives his life are wrong and not fit for the year 2020.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry is a public figure. I also know and like him. I don’t like his wife and I have a low opinion of her. But I would never dream of telling him that because I wouldn’t meddle in their relationship.
  • rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
    Proper trains now on Trans-Pennine Express. Plus the Azumas on LNER.
    The Class 397s on TPE? Yes I saw a couple at Glasgow a few weeks back. Built by Spanish firm CAF.
    Not that plastic tat! I'm talking about the Cats - Class 68s.
    Class 68s are also originally built in Spain by Vossloh Espana and latterly in Switzerland by Stadler :)
  • Nigelb said:

    I am puzzled by this sudden mass outbreak of expertise on the subject of other people’s marriages.

    I'm an expert in marriages except my own.

    As a bit of advice to the Royals, there should be a ban on senior Royals marrying a Yank.

    It never works out well.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Nigelb said:

    I am puzzled by this sudden mass outbreak of expertise on the subject of other people’s marriages.

    I'm an expert in marriages except my own.

    As a bit of advice to the Royals, there should be a ban on senior Royals marrying a Yank.

    It never works out well.
    Sound advice for anyone.

    :D:p
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry is a public figure. I also know and like him. I don’t like his wife and I have a low opinion of her. But I would never dream of telling him that because I wouldn’t meddle in their relationship.
    I think we have reached Peak Charles!
  • Nigelb said:

    I am puzzled by this sudden mass outbreak of expertise on the subject of other people’s marriages.

    I'm an expert in marriages except my own.

    As a bit of advice to the Royals, there should be a ban on senior Royals marrying a Yank.

    It never works out well.
    For the Royal concerned or for the institution?

    I can't think of a Royal who has regretted marrying a Yank.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    eadric said:

    Am I the first PBer to post from a tidal island in the middle of a river?

    There must be some reference to the coronavirus in here, like one of those cryptic crossword clues. ;)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I think you are being harsh on Harry here.

    He’s a deeply troubled young man who has been callously manipulated by a selfish fading actress. He believes that in leaving the royal family he is protecting his family against what happened to his mother.

    I think that's really harsh. I don't think he's been "callously manipulated" whatsoever and I think the way his wife has been treated, including remarks like that quite frankly, is quite disgusting.

    If someone comes after my wife I will back her to the hilt! Any decent man would.
    I have a low opinion of his wife. She is grasping and self centred and not as much in love with him as he is with her
    And I have a low opinion of people who judge and meddle in other people's relationships. That is grasping and self centred.

    They're a couple who've chosen each other and that is all that matters. That is marriage.
    Harry has renounced his duty to his brother, who will almost certainly be king in 20 years time. By then the usual persistent malcontents will be exploiting his estrangement, arguing that William, Kate and their family are too white, too aloof, too remote and should be replaced by the familiar daytime TV celebrities from across the water. H&M represent a future threat to the crown, not a present one.
    They won't be together by then.
    People said that about Wallis Simpson in 1936. It should be noted that they were entirely wrong.
    I am puzzled by this sudden mass outbreak of expertise on the subject of other people’s marriages.
    Women are expert at dissecting other people’s relationships. What do you think we do all day over our coffees?!
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    eadric said:

    Am I the first PBer to post from a tidal island in the middle of a river?

    No.

    But you might yet prove more correct about coronavirus than I gave you credit for. If so, I apologise.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - the Scottish Government appears to be running adverts on the London Underground for people to move to Scotland under the slogan “Scotland is Now”.

    It’s kind of weird the Scottish Government wants to attract mainly English immigrants to move into North Britain. Maybe Sturgeon secretly wants us to all move up there so we can vote down independence.

    Scotland is now what?

    Scotland is now North of England, officially.

    It reminds me of possibly the worst corporate slogan in history. Hitachi: Inspire the Next.

    Inspire the next what???
    I can't imagine your antipathy for Nike's slogan.
    http://www.hitachi.com.tw/eng/about/identity/inspire/index.html
    The Vision expresses what the Hitachi Group aims to become in the future. The slogan "Inspire the Next" is an expression of the Group's desire to make this Vision a reality.

    The word "Inspire" comes from the Latin "in" or "into" and "spirare" or "breathe." It means "to breathe life into," "to expand upon," and "to encourage." It also carries the meaning of "lifting spirits and raising awareness," and of "giving energy and courage."

    The red line stretching above and to the right of "Next" is called the "Inspire Flash." It represents Hitachi's strong desire to achieve even further growth.

    The Hitachi Group aims to help create a society that is overflowing with vitality, by "Inspiring the World".
    So why have their new trains got such rock-hard seats?
    I thought you only have Pacers oop north? :lol:
    Proper trains now on Trans-Pennine Express. Plus the Azumas on LNER.
    The Class 397s on TPE? Yes I saw a couple at Glasgow a few weeks back. Built by Spanish firm CAF.
    Not that plastic tat! I'm talking about the Cats - Class 68s.
    Class 68s are also originally built in Spain by Vossloh Espana and latterly in Switzerland by Stadler :)
    And they are totally Hellfire thrashing through Standedge Tunnel. Or from Birmingham Moor St to Snow Hill. My Lords!
This discussion has been closed.